Episode 1 The Big Questions

Today, immigration, midlife motherhood and sin.

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to a new series of The Big

Questions. Today we're live from Queen Mary University of London.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

On Wednesday, the press staked out the airports, and the MPs Keith Vaz

and Mark Reckless, who's with us today, were on hand too, all because

Britain had been told to expect a deluge of immigrants from Romania

and Bulgaria on New Year's Day. So far it's been more of a trickle. But

immigration has been on the rise and it's now being presented as a major

threat by many politicians and newspapers, from left to right. But

Jesus commanded his followers to, "Love thy Neighbour as thyself".

Does love thy neighbour mean welcoming immigrants?

Peter Hitchens, you are a practising Christian. You should abide by

that, love thy neighbour, including those from Romania and Bulgaria? Of

course it does. Nobody should treat a fellow creature badly. That is

basic to everything we think or do or say. But the people coping with

immigration do not tend to be the ones taking decisions to allow

migrants to come here. The people who are saying, come, you are

welcome, as those who live far away from the areas which will be

overcrowded, from GP surgeries to schools where there will be no

places. And so for them to say, you must love your neighbour while we

sit in our safe jobs and our council housing areas not being affected, is

quite different from saying, I must love my neighbour. What does it mean

in the context of immigration? It means welcome. It means looking

after. Peter has made the case about the long queues at the doctors, at

the school gates etc. They are down to politicians mismanaging the

investment. Migrants make a net contribution. Down my road,

Streatham high road, a couple of delicatessens have opened up. They

will pay taxes. Their children go to the local schools because they are

paying the taxes. There are other issues apart from economics, unless

you are a Thatcherite who believes that money is the only thing that

matters. One of the problems about loving your neighbours is it is

harder to love your neighbour if you don't share a language or a culture,

if you don't share a sense of humour. If you don't share any legal

system. It is difficult. How do you know you don't share a sense of

humour with the Romanian and Bulgarian 's? I am a widely

travelled person, so I know the difference between this country and

other countries. There are great differences between their country

and I was partly because they lived for years under commenters. Of

course there are challenges. There are challenges from an ageing

population. It does not mean that you bump your old people off. You

engage with those challenges. Be smug people who say there are no

problem about this... Nobody is saying there are not challenges. The

smoke people who are complacent about this are not those who live

with it. -- the smug people. Nor are they those whose jobs are affected.

You will not find many Polish MPs, Polish media figures, Polish civil

servants, actors, you will not find that the jobs being done by the

elite are the ones I affected by the influx of people from outside who

are prepared to work for less. Who are prepared to live in overcrowded

conditions. Owen Jones, has mass immigration being good for the UK?

In lots of ways, of course it has. The NHS is propped up by

immigrants. 30% of doctors are foreign-born. 40% of our nurses.

Many of us may have been brought into the world by Pakistani nurses.

You may have been tended by Indian doctors. What infuriates me about

this debate is the way that, since the bankers plunged this country and

the rest of the world into the economic disaster it has suffered

since, there has been a cynical and concerted attempt to pass the blame

for all the social ills of this country away from those responsible

at the top to people's neighbours down the street. Immigrants. You say

we should be welcoming. I have no idea if you are a practising

Christian or not. I am not a believer. Tony Benn once said that

he listened closely to the message of Jesus, love thy neighbour. But if

it does mean welcoming thy neighbour under all circumstances, who would

you not letting? This is the problem with this debate. It is a specific

question. Do you draw the line anywhere? Where would I draw the

line? The point we have to discuss as a country is why we have the

social problems we have. Is it to do with immigrants? There are

challenges. This is so crucial. There are massive problems in this

country. Take the housing crisis. I bet there are people in this

audience, people watching, who are stuck on a council housing waiting

list. 5 million people are stuck on council housing waiting lists. That

is not the fault of the immigrants. It is the fold of politicians who

refused to let councils have the power. This is such a strawman

argument. Nobody is saying it is the fault of the individual immigrants.

Nobody blames people coming here seeking to improve their lives. It

would be what many of us would do in the same circumstances. It is not a

question of blaming the immigrants. It is a question of blaming the

politicians who, particularly under Labour, opened the gates in this

country in a way which is unprecedented. Peter, I want to

bring Mark reckless. They have changed the labour market and the

housing market. Nor is it saying, and I have two say this, because it

is probably the last time I will get to say this, of course you can blame

the problems of this country on many different things. We are discussing

immigration. If you want to discuss bankers, I agree with you on a lot

of what you say. But this particular issue is about immigration. You

cannot say the problems caused by immigration at the same as those

caused by bankers. Mark reckless, you were at Luton airport. Love thy

neighbour, would Jesus have been with you at Luton airport? Would he

have stopped people coming in at Dover? Mass immigration is something

he would have encouraged. I'm not sure he would. I hope we can draw

the distinction between welcoming individuals and policy is a country.

Has mass immigration mingled for this country? I'm not sure it

happens, at least not in the mass numbers you are talking about. 4

million people came into this country under Labour government. My

government promised, and I stood for election on the promise to cut the

number of immigrants coming in... I want to keep that promise to the

electorate. If we just let in large numbers of people from Bulgaria and

Romania, who can very quickly become eligible for social housing, get tax

benefits and can send child benefit from this country back to children

at school in Rumania... I have been campaigning on that for two years.

If at last we're going to see action, I am delighted. You came in

a promise -- on a promise of having a go at the migrants. You are

already laying the blame at the door of the migrants. Instead of dealing

with the underlying problems. It is absurd to suggest you can have

controlled system of immigration without being decent and nice and

all the things you should be to those who are coming in. I lived in

Rumania for three years in the days of Ceausescu. A lot of the

conditions that pertain then, still apply now. Of course people will

come here. What we are talking about is the scale. It is silly to suggest

that when you have something like one third of the families in this

country, that is foolish. Of course, immigration is good and we should

have controlled immigration. Are you worried about the cultural

challenges, which I think has been hinted at by Peter? Something like

700,000 children in this country speak 300 languages between them. We

were talking earlier that the tribalism that we should be getting

away from. Unfortunately, when you get migration taking place at this

sort of rate, that is inevitably what it is going to lead to, little

groups of people living within our society. That is the last thing we

want. Culture is learning. We keep going on about how they don't speak

our language. We go to Spain. We don't speak the language there. We

gather in our own little group and eat fish and chips etc. We speak

English. The reality is, of course we need to have some level of

control. At the debate we are seeing, not necessarily this debate

but the debate we are seeing generally in society, is a debate

that actually blames the migrant. People have always moved. We have

always moved for economic reasons. Governments around the world,

whether they be in Europe or on a much wider scale, they do need is to

create the types of economy around the world so that people will want

to stay where they are and enjoy their lives. If you are going to

repeat his accusation that those of us worried about large-scale mass

immigration blaming the migrants, come up with one instance of anybody

ever having done so? I haven't done so, he hasn't done so. It is a

simple false accusation repeatedly made that this is something to do

with a loathing or hatred of migrants. It has nothing to do with

that at all. I am going to come to the audience.

We will get own's response. Nobody has accused you of loathing hating

immigrants. Who is responsible what is responsible for the real social

problems this country has? For example, low wages. People's pay

packet in this country have been shrinking for ten years. The reason

we have fallen wages in this country is because we have weak trade unions

which cannot stand the ground and get a good slice of pie. It is a

minimum wage. It is the form of globalisation we have got. And it is

to do with austerity. I am actually coming up with proposals here. Let's

have a living wage, let's stop employers, sorry, force employers,

to hire people on the same terms and conditions. Stronger trade unions

which camera present workers. Rather than an agenda of despair and

blaming people. People, please! -- Peter. He says quite clearly nobody

is blaming the migrants. He has said it quite clearly from the beginning

of the programme. The benefits of immigration are there to see in

terms of the National Health Service and London transport, and

organisations like that. A number of speakers are overlooking the fact

that Britain is a signatory to the European Union. We have got the

wrist -- facility of reciprocating moving around Europe. It is legal

immigration. We are not talking about illegal immigration. Many

people have used that facility. Instead of scaremongering and

prodding forward bogus arguments. Youth unemployment is right at the

moment, so why do we welcome people to a country that still has

problems? With the issues in our country today, like the amount of

benefits culture and the skills that people bring with them, that is far

more beneficial than the negative harm that is brought in the short

term. Mark Reckless? A fair couple of points for you. George Osborne is

for ever emphasising the fact that there are hard-working families, but

perhaps next all the blinds drawn and those people, he said, are

feckless and lazy and unwilling to work. The point is, people who come

here are desperate to work. They want to work. Do you not acknowledge

that? Yes, I do, and I think it's difficult for young people in my

constituency who are struggling to get a job or move up the career

ladder if employers are able to import workers. So they are not

feckless? The people coming from Bulgaria and Romania are desperate

to work, and will work for lower wages, and will work long and hard

because of the comparison to the home country. The point George

Osborne makes, there is a comparison with immigration. In order to

sustain the welfare state, where people paying, what they want to

feel is that they can also benefit from that, and those who receive

from it are those who deserve to, and they can see themselves doing

that if they have to fall on hard times. But if money is going to

people who won't work, and people who are coming from overseas who do

work hard but are still eligible for top ups and tax credits, people will

question the whole basis of the welfare state. Do you say that the

EU migrants are making more for the country than they are taking out.

That is one argument, and it is one survey. It is often commuter

migration, people who take large amounts of money out of the country

and send it back to their family at home, and they don't come here to

stay for the long term, but think about how they can make the most

money, quickly and take it back home. These people have paid into a

pension they will never claim. Jonathan Bartley, is this right

about people taking the money and going home? It is not the reality.

These arguments I have heard for three or four decades. When the

Asian community came to the UK, they set up an entrepreneurial culture

and we were faced with a lot of racism and hostility, the thought we

were taking jobs away. We were economic migrants and we came here

to have a better future. And within that hardship a lot of people coming

with ?3 in their pocket became global entrepreneurs. A lot of the

entrepreneurs in this country are my grits and have contributed to the

plc of the UK -- are migrants. There is an awful lot we have contributed.

50s? Who is to say where you draw the line, but if you get into your

50s and you are having children, you will be in your 70s when they are in

their early 20s. This is not ideal. My fundamental point is, for

goodness sake, can't we babies for women who are biologically ready for

them. I am an older mother, and I recently had a baby. I am 42, but I

think the main issue for me and women of my generation has been

finding a partner at the age which is biologically ideal to have a

baby, perhaps your late or mid-20s. It takes a long time to meet Mr

Right? It did for me. Did you kiss a lot of frogs? Not a lot, honey. One

thing I thought was shocking was a recent study said 70% of women over

50 disapprove of women of 40 having a baby. These are the same women who

raised a generation of young men who are unwilling, unable and

uninterested in commitment until they get to around 40 or 42, and

then they want a 26. The women of my generation in their late 30s or

early 40s are pummelled by the media for leaving it too late, being

selfish, and these women have genuinely been seeking an

appropriate partner for a decade or longer and would like nothing more

than to have a baby when it is biologically ideal but have been

unable to find a partner who was willing and able, and by the time

those guys get round to it, they no longer want women of their age. They

want to be rich, established. Tyler wants to come in. I understand what

you are saying, but what we are missing out from the discussion is

the foundation of love and peace. I don't think age is necessarily a big

factor. There are many children in the care system, the foster care

system and I'm sure they are not looking back saying, when was I

born? We need to take the tradition of the Jewish culture perhaps which

has a fantastic tradition on Friday, when they lay their hands on their

child and speak blessing on to the child. So if it is a male child they

will say something like, may the blessing of Africa and beyond you,

and if it is the daughter, made the blessing of Rachel beyond you. --

Ephraim. -- be on you. It is important we focus on the love and

the blessing. That is the important thing. I see Mark Reckless wants to

coming, as do many people. We noticed you asked the first question

to a man, which is obviously significant. What does it signify?

Is being an older parents selfish. Statistically men die for years

before women, so the idea women are being selfish is neither here nor

there. My experience of running a club is that as a woman you try to

do anything else, go to work, go out for the evening, have some time with

your friends, and somebody is queueing up to make you feel guilty.

The second thing you should have mentioned is that is that -- is that

the statistics are conceding. The overall number is still small, 1% up

to 4%. A 400% rise. But there has been a steady rise. One thing we can

do about this is make adoption easier, which is what I said to my

GP. She said older mothers are great, incredibly motivated,

committed because they want the baby so much. That is a very good point.

Is there a sense, because of medical advances and the nature of society,

women are being sold a vision? I am the daughter of journalists. My

generation have done something a little disingenuous. We write

articles saying that if you are in your 30s and having a great time,

and the women in their 30s say they don't need to do it now, I spoke to

a male friend and his girlfriend moved in, and he said don't hang

around because life is so nice. There is never a good time. The

mistake we made was because you might be able to get pregnant, and

the fertility is against you, but we can't help that. Biology is not

sexist, that is the way it is. Because we can it doesn't mean we

should or it is easy. The best favour you can do any woman in this

room who is in their 30s in a relationship is to say, get on with

it. How relationship is to say, get on with

and 33,000 of them were over 40. Can you put them in a room and tell them

they are selfish? It's completely unnecessary and judgemental. It is

not just about choosing, some women do not have a choice to choose to

give birth over 40, it actually just happens to them. They may have had

an illness, breast cancer, frozen eggs, and you may not have the

choice. Also there is the fertility issue as well is not meeting the

right man. You may not have chosen. I was an older mother, but I think

I'd turned out to be as good as others, and even though there are

risks. There are risks but if you put in the correct maternity pathway

with moral midwives, and give one to one care in Labour, we will have

lots of better outcomes. It is important we get the maternity pads

geared up for the women who are older because they deserve it. Mark,

I have not forgotten you. Let me ask you a question. I think it was

Stephanie who hinted at it. There are challenges if you are a mother

at 45 and you have a 15-year-old. If you have a 15-year-old when you are

60, perhaps no grandparents. They may be feeling at the school gates

that you are too old. You don't buy that? I don't buy that. I'm

encouraged by the thought that women are now thinking about when they

have their children and actually planning. We need to be encouraging

more women, more parents, to think about, can I afford a child? When

should we have a child? Instead of having children willy-nilly. I am

very encouraged that women in particular are taking control and

saying they are going to wait. Please, do not rush out and have sex

and have babies! Are you referring to Stephanie here? ! The point is

what we have done slightly, and I think the media is very responsible,

is to promote this idea that we can have it all, the beast with the

CEO's head on and exhausted body. You can have it all if you get up

that bit earlier and be magical and marvellous. Those celebrity mothers

who say they are so fulfilled, have personal assistants, nannies,

housekeepers... I am not thinking about celebrities. I'm talking about

ordinary women. The thought about, you are going to die, you are going

to be old and wrinkly at the school gates, it takes a village to grow a

child. There will be no grandparents in the village. People in their 30s

are writing articles! I agree with you completely about the sense that

we put out this image that you can have it all. At the same time I

would argue that there is just as strong message condemning and

judging women who are not having their babies earlier, and calling

them selfish career obsessed. These poor women are out there trying to

meet the right guy, trying to get this organised, seeing fertility

experts and all we do is bash them over the head. Audience? Lady at the

back. Good morning. With regard to the

earlier comment, I absolutely agree. Women having babies over 40, I think

it is selfish of us to actually George whether women have babies. I

have just had my baby. She is two years old today. I was 47 and three

quarters when she was born. I think having a baby is a joyful decision.

It was not something when I was very young that I planned to have a baby

when I was 47. I hoped I would have a baby when I was 29. Life

circumstance did not work out that way. I embarked on IVF, I knew it

was great to be a mass of thing for me. I did a lot to prepare myself.

What Jackie said about the support and the midwifery is vital. People

who do embark on pregnancy when they are older need to take it seriously

and that they need to make sure that they are as healthy as they can be,

make sure they are eating correctly, not chain-smoking. It is very much

like people who adopt. They are extra motivated to have children and

make wonderful parents. Absolutely. As an older mother, you have got a

lot of life skills. Positive parenting is really important. Older

mothers do statistically become good mothers. Mark reckless, you have

been trying to get in for ages. An elected member of the mother of

Parliament? My wife has just had our second baby. Her age is a state

secret. When was she born? ! What worries me about this debate is that

the number of people are saying that women have a choice to have babies

late into their 40s, and some do. Most do not. I would say to women

watching this programme in their mid-30s, if they want to have a

baby, they need to get on with it. Because if people leave it, most of

them will not be able to have a baby when they're older. It has a great

deal to do with me if this programme gives women the impression that they

will be able to choose to have women -- babies in their 40s. Most will

not. Some can. That is how fertility works. It is really important that

women understand that and do not assume they can have babies in their

40s because, for most people, IVF does not work. Most women in their

40s will not be able to have a baby when they wanted because that is how

it works. We need to understand that. Oliver James? Most of the

problem is we have men in skirts, sex and the city form of feminism.

The feminism I knew at University involved main changing. The feminism

we have in America and England is a feminism which is all about women

becoming more and more like men. It is competitive and aggressive.

During their 20s they behave like men and drink and smoke and have sex

as much as men. They go through their 20s and they get to their 30s

and biology is completely ignored. The tragedy is that in the 1950s,

many aspirations were much lower. That was actually a good thing in

terms of what you expected. We now plays such a heavy load on what we

get from the relationship with our partner. The proportion of women in

the 1950s who said they were paid to marry someone was much higher.

Tragically, in the period of history when divorce went up, when

relationships or more likely to collapse, women started to place a

higher and higher premium on loving their man. What about men? What

about older fathers? How old were you when you had your youngest? I

was 47. My dad had me at 51 and it was fantastic. When I was a

teenager, he was around. We had quality time together. He lived

until he was 91. Died the year before last. I really treasure that

time we have together. There comes a point when you want to be away from

your parents. Fortunately, we crossed over. I really value that

time. It was fantastic. I would just take issue with the point made at

the beginning about birth defects and about genetics. I also have a

disabled child. If anybody in any way devalue my son because he has

aided -- disability, I think that is incredibly offensive to him, it is

incredibly offensive to other people. It should never be in

arguing against having babies late that there may be birth defects. On

which point we will end. It deserves another round of applause.

You can join this morning's debate by logging onto the website and

following the link to the online discussion. You can tweet. Tell us

what you think of our last programme as well, does society need send? --

last issue. We are recruiting audiences for Salford on January the

19th, Bishop Stortford on February the 2nd and Leicester on the ninth.

Well, did you make any New Year resolutions? The turn of the years

when many of us try to turn over a new leaf, to reform, to stop being

sinners. Lost, sloths and Raff are hard enough. What would happen to

the economy if we gave up greed, gluttony, envy and pride? Does

society need send? Where is Stewart? Hello, Stuart. Yes, greed is

essential and sin, they are just essential to how society works. I

can see Alan gearing up to Temme to ten metre threads. I have a real

issue with socialism all over the world. Greed is what drives society

forward. It links with immigration. I get up at six every morning not

because I want to but because I have a desire to better myself and the

children that I may one day have, if I can find a victim to have them for

me! You have a successful business that turned over 3 million last

year. ?3 million is nothing. Why is that sin? I don't equate that with

greed at all. You do have to be quite ruthless. Oh and's trade

unionist debate... Stop picking on Owen! Are you proud of what you have

achieved? I am very proud. You have got a lot of sports cars and so

forth? Absolutely. Three. Why? Unfortunately, women are not

attracted to cars and it has taken me 25 years to realise that! Peter

Hitchens, what do you think about this? Greed is part of capitalism

and is an impetus for success. Does not have to be -- greed. The desire

to be the best at what you can be, if that brings you riches... Exactly

what we do not need is more greed and more dishonesty and more sin.

That is what has got us into the mess that we are in. What is the

banking collapse except the absolute failure on the part of many people

to behave in honest, wise, thrifty, provident ways in which they ought

to have done? It is a straightforward episode of large

scale sin and the consequences of it. As some any of the other things

wrong with our society. There is no reason to have evil motives or to

which to do wicked things if you want to achieve much in our

society. On the contrary, you will achieve more if you don't. You have

only got to look at those who achieved. If I parked my car in

certain parts of London, it would be spat in. That is because people look

down on achievers. It is ruthless capitalism which enables me to

hire... We are told not to covet our neighbour's goods. Honestly, if we

cannot trust our neighbours to be honest with us and to be straight

with us, and if we can't trust our neighbours to be virtuous, our whole

society would break down. Everything we have around us, this building we

stand in, it all depends upon trust and honesty. If you covered your

neighbour's ass or their BMW, should you say, I'm going to work hard to

get one? It is a motivation but is one of the wrong ones. If you have

nothing but material goods to hope for. There are many more important

things. Owen Jones, you have had two honourable mentions from Stuart so

far. I'm not going to spit on his car and I would not encourage

others. It is a false argument this. I am not a believer myself. But in

terms of wanting people to do the best possible for themselves and

their kids, I want people, best possible for themselves and

for the first time since the Second World War, the next generation will

be poorer than the last. Society is geared for the personal enrichment

of a very small number of people at the top while many are struggling.

We have a banking collapse were those responsible end up getting off

scot-free, while half a million people in the seventh richest

country on earth are driven into food banks because we can no longer

afford to feed our poorest people. That is the problem. I just heard

agreement between Alan Jones and Peter Hitchens. Mark that moment!

Bankers is one aspect that, yes, they screwed it up, to be blunt. But

without the capitalist system you would not be sat here now. That is

the point. Trade unionists are just as responsible for the decline of

society. Look at the 1970s. People like you destroyed the British car

industry. Well, I destroyed the British car industry! Within the

Bible there are no distinctions about sin. Sin is sin and greed is

included in that. I am astonished that we have something in common at

last. I must dash I am glad to hear it. I hear the young man speaking at

the end about how successful he is, and I'm delighted for everyone who

does well. I want everybody to be ambitious and do well but if that

doing well means you have accumulated so much, and from that

you pay your staff a minimal amount, and the waste of money on

cars and material things, then that, I'm afraid, is sin. It's good

news for the car dealership. Great news for them, but how many cars can

we drive at one time? I'm not just picking on your cars. But you could

say that is creating jobs. I hope he is creating jobs and sharing his

cars. It is whether or not in the creation of jobs we are paying

people are living wage. I will edge it towards theology again, you

believe all children are born with sin. Yes, you see it in a young

child, you can see the selfish nature. Of course you can. When you

tell a child, don't do that, they do it. Sometimes they go the opposite

way. You can see the disobedience in a child. I am interested in this

children thing. I am not condemning children. I'm not saying children

will go to hell, but I am saying that sin is something we inherited

at the fall, since Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of England

-- Eden. With regard to sin as an issue in society, with regards to

alcohol-related issues, 33,000 deaths as a result of alcohol. If

the Bible says it is a sin, is it a sin? Of course. Do not have a tad

too? That is a sin. Do not plant with two types of seed? I'm quoting

from the Bible. Do not wear clothes made of two types of material? But

what you are trying to do is take it out of context, because the truth

is, with regards to the old Testament, which is basically the

law of Moses, the law of grace is what Jesus died on the cross for,

and we are under the covenant of grace. It is up to you whether you

decide to choose and accept the grace, the fact that Jesus had his

hands penis and died on the cross. -- had his hands pierced.

The point is, where will you go when you die is the question. Where will

you go when you die? I will die in a box and become nutrients for

caterpillars. When you have society divided amongst religious lines, you

are motivated by what you perceive to be a fact in the Bible. That is

not my choice of fiction to read, but I don't take anything from the

Ten Commandments. I treat others how I wish to be treated, and as for

paying your staff, it's a free market. If you don't pay your staff

enough they are sufficiently skilled, will go elsewhere. What

about the original sin? This thing with children? Sin is what stops is

flourishing -- us flourishing. We are being defined in economic and

materialistic terms, and I think the Bible offers a more wide view of

what is human flourishing. If you look in places like Norway and New

Zealand, people are happier and have a greater sense of well-being

because they are not pursuing a materialistic, capitalist outlook.

They want good health care and education and a good standard of

living, good air quality. They want something much richer. They want fun

with sport and recreation. Those countries also have less theology.

Rosie runs a website that facilitates people who are married

to meet other people so they can explore a relationship with another

person. While they are still married. I think that would go down

as a sin. That is definitely on all of your checklists. It's interesting

hearing this debate. So many people have so many different versions and

have a vague doctrine with words like lust. It seems this is an

outdated set of rules. You don't mind breaking up marriages? There

are 2 million lone parents in this country. I was raised by a lone

parent, so I have no problem. I am a spokesperson and relationship

expert. I guess my vision of the world is one where we have more open

polyamory rather than monogamy. Does monogamy not work? We know between

40% and 60% of people who are married will eventually cheat on

their partner in some way, including kisses at office parties and things

like that. We know that monogamy is not really work for everyone and

it's important to start asking questions about whether this is the

right social framework for relationships. My question to you is

do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing? This is the real question

here, particularly for the children of the marriages which you so

blithely set out to break up. Is this a good thing for the children?

As someone who was raised by a single mother, I do, but I'm

speaking to lots of people. I asked you if you thought it was good for

the children of the marriage that you break up? It's a simple

question. Do you think it's good for the children if the marriage breaks

up? Do you think that? You are absolutely encouraging it. We are on

adultery and monogamy. Does it work, monogamy, Oliver? Yes, it certainly

can do, but it depends on the system you are in. The fundamental point I

would make about original sin and childhood, childhood is critical but

children are not born evil or not evil. Children are very much blank

slates. The human genomics project shows that it explains little in how

children are different from one another. We think of sin as being

bad, but 40% of the prison population were at some point in

local authority care. In other words their parenting was not very good

and had to be taken over by the state, and 40% of the prison

population in local authority care, those key causes of destructive

behaviour, whether to others or oneself of the quality of the care

you had in your early years combined with living in a shop till you

drop, it could be you, credit fuelled consumer junkie society. The

combination of society and the affluence of society that we live

in, combined with early years is what creates bad behaviour. Stuart

confused agreed with aspiration in his original state. You are greedy.

You don't seem to understand the difference between greed and

aspiration. It is one thing to aspire, it's another thing to be

greedy. You wanted an explanation as to why you believe children are

selfish. My point is that our human nature is corrupted when we are

born. Is it? Yes, we are born with original sin. Humans are very

malleable and it depends on the environment in which we brought up,

and the reasons we different so much -- differ so much, if you brought up

in a loving household, you're likely to do better in later life. Let he

who is without sin cast the first stone, and relationships don't need

a website to break up, and the reasons some break-up is for good

reason. 1 million people in this country suffer from domestic

violence. Do I want to keep those relationships together, I don't. I

think they should -- break-up in many cases, but what's important for

the child is to have a loving household. It doesn't matter if they

are lone parents, gave parents, if there are three of them bringing up

the child, as long as they are in a loving household, none of us should

have a problem with that. I'd like to stress the fact that a lot of

people on the website are not having affairs. They want to look at their

options and they want to explore the idea of flirting with somebody who

is not their partner. I think the problem here is that we are going

deeply against human nature, and we know this. We are not naturally

monogamous. Basically you are adhering to a little of what you

fancy does you good. It's almost a sort of base, animalistic thing you

are aiming at. Some animals are monogamous. We need to rise above

it. Pray silence for Reverend Rose. We need commitment in

relationships, whatever relationships we form, we need

commitment. Running around saying I fancy a bit of this or that can only

ring disaster. -- bring disaster. Regarding your point about this

whole adulterous website which I think is absolutely destructive, and

I'm not being personal, by the way. A little bit personal. 152,000 cases

of chlamydia in 2010. Peter Hitchens, that is a strong point.

What we seem to forget is civilisation is not natural. If we

were in a state of nature, unrestrained by any moral code, we

would be savage. Things such as peas, Law, education, we take those

are granted, but they rose because people observed and accepted moral

codes which are sometimes difficult to observe, and based on the actions

that are considered wrong and are called sin. That is very interesting

because children do have base instincts as defined by Sigmund

Freud, and we are repressing it all the time, and I think a lot of

people don't necessarily choose to be savages, lots of us do not

necessarily want to have an affair. I flirt, I go out, but I don't

necessarily always want to do it. What is stopping me is not some

rule. I still fancy my husband after 25 years. I am happier now than when

I had a lot of men in my life. The big challenge to monogamy is

longevity. 100 years ago, half the people in this room would not be

here. I would have died in childbirth because the baby's head

was too big. What can we do to support people to help them stay

married if that is the state they wish to be in? We need something,

and I'm not a Christian, but I got married with advice from a vicar who

I met and liked about the long path and staying together and

friendship. If we all have that support. Relate sake come to us

sooner, don't wait till it goes bad. We need more support to stay in the

relationships. I am a child of divorced parents, and it is not fun.

That has to be the last word. We task -- started talking about sin

and we got on to sex. Thank you very much for participating. As always,

the debates will continue online and on Twitter. Next week we're back

here in East London to debate human rights versus religious rights, so

join us then. But for now, it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.

Thank you very much for watching.