Episode 11 The Big Questions

Good morning! I am Nicky Campbell, welcome. We are live from

Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, welcome to The Big

Questions! This week, the left-wing of British politics lost two

important voices, Tony Benn and Bob Crow. Tony Benn was part of

Labour's political aristocracy, Bob Crow was the general secretary of

the RMT, where he secured money, perks and a generous pension for

Tube drivers. Jeremy Paxman accused Bob Crow of being a dinosaur, Bob

Crow replied, they were around for a long while. Has trade unionism had

its day? Is there a place still for union leaders like Bob Crow, big

figures fighting hard for their members? In some days, they hark

back to the likes of Jack Jones. Are they of a bygone Iraq? Of course

not. Bob Crow doubled his membership, nearly, the cos he was

fighting for his members and getting good pay rises. If a union is doing

that, you will get people wanting to join. It is good money, they will

think. Trade unions have got a role to play. All over the world. A good,

strong union. We have got strong industry here, the bosses have

always been strong, so why should the trade unions not be? They are

ordinary people, coming together. ?50,000 a year for the drivers, that

is a fantastic deal. In the City of London, nobody pays anybody more

than they are worth or more than the company could afford, clearly, the

company can afford ?50,000 a year. Massive respect for what he

delivered, but it was a short-term gain. Boris Johnson is looking to

have driverless trains. If the cost of the drivers was not so high, he

would not consider that. It is a short-term gain. The way we go about

business now is working with trade unions, rather than having an

adversarial relationship. You look at the British motor industry, you

look at the 70s, you will remember... Barely! It was full of

strikes every day, Miss Anne came in, they said, we want to book

together, the most productive plant in Europe, washing out cars. The

staff are well paid, they work hard, but they do not have an adversarial

relationship. Would that company have been able to operate in this

part of the world in the 70s and early 80s? Only if the trade unions

could have moved with the times. That is right in a sense, the unions

have modernised, we are talking about the miners strike, we will

never get that again. But trade unions have modernised, Nissan a

great example. As long as you are working together and it is not all

one-sided. I have seen people working together in workshops, it

has been one-sided. As long as trade unions are working with industry to

make it take and make the work better and to have the conditions

that they need, fine. There will never be anything like the miners

strike again, can you conceive a situation where there would be

industrial action as all-encompassing and bitter as that

in this country? Nobody wanted to go down that road. Could it happen? I

hope not, because a year-long means that neither side has won. I can see

that circumstances will arise where people will get angry about the

state of affairs and they will say, enough is enough. I was at a meeting

yesterday, grouping together trade unions and local campaigners, and

there is a mood of anger against austerity, I can foresee they will

ordinate industrial action, because services are being destroyed, people

do not like that, and trade unions want to be at the service of the

community as well as their members. I can see that happening. Even the

strikes that the RNC brought in January, London businesses were at

breaking point. Businesses, retailers in London, if you have

two, four days out, when the country is trying to come out of recession,

it will kill the monthly turnover. Who was responsible? Bob Crow. No,

it was Boris Johnson, removing staff from ticket offices. The members in

that union said, no, we will not have our jobs lost. That is what

motivates people to take industrial action, their right to have a job,

decent pay and decent conditions. They are politicising an issue which

is a management/worker emotion chip bubble. They need to think of

change. A good union does not turn round with a fight against

austerity. Public sector jobs are going to the private sector. That is

great if you are in the private sector, but the unions are trying to

politicise it by saying this is a way to tackle austerity. We can not

afford the high cost of public expenditure. In fairness to the

workers, we have got the bankers' bonuses, and the wages they are

getting, and the money they are getting. And they are being told, I

am not going to get a rise, and I am in debt, and austerity has hit me

for four or five years, and here are the gaffers getting all of this

money. It is unbalanced. You come to our members, nothing of what you

have said relates to them. Most of them are hard-working, fighting for

profit, risking everything. When you say that they are gaffers, that is

an old term. What about the fat cats in the City of London? We stood up

and said that the fact that the dividend payments at Barclays were

three times lower than the executive pay, that is wrong. We do not deny

that, so do not start throbbing that back. Thousands of workers in this

country are not going to get a pay rise this year. And thousands of

businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Profit is rising. That is

the success of the whole organisation. You talked about jobs

going to the private sector. In Doncaster, the careful people with

mental disabilities has been privatised, they have cut the pay of

the workers. In some cases by up to 50%. The union members have taken

seven days of strike action, something they would never have done

in the past, and they are going to take another seven days. They are

having their pay cut as a result of privatisation. They are not the only

ones. Is there a case for some people in the public sector not to

be allowed to strike? Indeed. This is not going to go down well with

these men. The London Tube network and some of the union members should

not be allowed to strike where there is a larger financial benefit to

London or the UK as a whole. The police cannot strike, the Tube

network in London is an essential service, it should be regarded as

such. Teachers? If you are going to roll that theory out, oddly, yes. If

you take that away from working people, you are taking their rights

away. There are many who have sympathy with your position, many do

not, but these are hard-won rights in the 18th and 19th century, a

fascinating part of our history. Are you suggesting they should be

curtailed? Rolled back? Yes, and some of the rules need to evolve.

Many rules and regulations have evolved through time, as the world

has changed. This is one of those things that needs to be changed, it

needs to evolve with the times. The bosses and the people who are at the

control cannot be trusted, we have seen this with the bankers. If the

workers have not got some way to defend themselves, they will just be

exploited, we see it everyday. 50% of employment in this country in the

private sector is in small business, and this general term, the bosses,

is being thrown around, as if we are all getting bankers' bonuses, but it

is a tiny percentage. The modern world is very different. You are

talking about joining the modern Iraq. Are they dinosaurs? The

dinosaurs died out, let's hope these old ways are going. Let the

Victorian mill owners buy off, but equally, we need the trade union

movement to move on. We have to be careful coming down your throat,

because there are bosses that will exploit workers -- coming down your

route. We know Ryan air very well, but if you ask Michael Leary who the

most important people in their organisation in terms of the

stakeholders, he talks about the staff, he says, if the staff are

happy, and therefore the shareholders are happy. Office

workers happy? Why does he not let them join a union, then? If he think

they are happy, he would not have to worry. We have the working poor,

people who are in work and still poor, and the taxpayer is

subsidising their bosses. If everybody had a fair day's paid for

a fair day's work, there would be no problem. What about customers? We

have mentioned the bosses and the workers, what about the customers?

The lady at the back, good morning. Good morning! I am wondering what

you mean about fair play. As a 20-year-old, I am still being

parried's paid ?5 an hour. I have worked in different bars, and you

have to kind of businesses, the one where I am working now, where I know

the boss, and I know they are having issues, they are trying to start

up, they say, we will pay you the minimum wage, you have got to

understand we are trying to build, and after rebuild, we can give you

something back, but some places, I have a zero our contract, they will

give you the minimum pay, they are getting the money in, and they are

leaking you there. It is not like you have a lot of emphasis on the

trains, this is a lot of people working in bars and these kind of

places, and they do not get a say, and they are struggling. Many

companies without unions will pay people as little as they can get

away with, you don't think so? No, it is a short-term solution, not a

long-term fix. Most people in business are looking for long term.

You can't do that forever. You've got to treat your staff well or they

do not perform as best they can. If they perform well, your business

performs well. And what about the argument about protecting the jobs

of the here and now and in so doing jeopardising the jobs in the future,

it was that the case in the '70s? We are a globally competitive world, so

whatever we do, we have to make sure we are better, be it by quality,

price or service, than anyone else in the world. We can't look across

the river and say, they are paid 50p an hour more. One of the issues of

this time is zero hour contracts. They've risen 1,000% in the last

couple of years. It kills your argument. No, it helps it. I have a

chap who is 56, he doesn't want to work full time. He is a craftsman.

He likes the idea that he can have a few weeks off. We work together. But

that's the exception. No it is not, it happens all the time. The

gentleman there. Good morning. I think if your friend was a single

man, wouldn't enjoy that time off with zero hours contracts.

APPLAUSE And if you pay workers more money, that money goes back into the

economy. If people use the word gaffer, I apologise if a working

class term offends you that much. APPLAUSE Down, boy! Hold fire. Let's

get more comments. With the glasses. The thing is you are alls talking

about trade unions and that's all well and good, but it seems to me

you are talking about people who've already in work. I've only just

turned 16, so I'm at the age now where I can start looking for a job

and get work, and a few of my friends are, but we don't know our

rights. We are taught, this is how you do a CV, but we need somebody

our age to stand up for us and say, this is what you are allowed. If we

don't have that, it is easy for us to be taken advantage of, and that

has happened. APPLAUSE Who is there for the

workers Richard? Modern business doesn't look to take advantage of

its workforce. Private companies look to work with their employees,

because a happy workforce actually looks to further the company's aims,

once the company is making more money, the customer is more engaged

and there is more money to pay the staff. We had a situation here on

Tyneside where on the Metro, the private contractor employed the

cleaners on a minimum wage, refused to recognise the trade union. That

was a success of the RMT, they won a living wage for those cleaners. It

took 12 months but they did it. As much as I think it would be lovely

to say bosses wants to look after their staff, unfortunately you will

always get a certain amount of people that won't treat people well

and somebody needs to look after people who haven't got a voice.

APPLAUSE Ian and Richard here in Newcastle University you've come

into the lion's den! The exception moves rule. Good employers will

survive in the long return and bad employers won't. One of the things

we have to bear in mind is the vast majority. It is a bit like you might

say the dinosaurs but the trade union movement are dying out and the

modern unions are coming forward. You would think from listening to

Ian we have Utopia in industry. We haven't got any! The world is

constantly changing and we have to move with it. Globalisation,

freelance work... Zero hours work contracts, whatever it is. I

employed an apprentice. He understood customer service, what it

ways like to turn up every day and he was better prepared to work

Have you been in a union? Yes I was. I left a union as well. I was in the

national Union of Journalists when I first started in the working world.

What's wrong, couldn't hack it? APPLAUSE You making the just

remember the 1980s, it was time when the NUV was strong, powerful, but

there was a huge amount of change coming place. I had come out of

university and I was using a PC, but they used a typewriter with carbon

papers. It was a joke. I was struggling away. I said to the

editor, who had a computer, "Can I have a computer?" He said

unfortunately the NUJ refuses to let you have computers unless you get

more pay for using one. I said, buts easier for me. But he said no, the

union refuses. After six months of the union wanting another 20% pay

rise, I said my life's miserable because of what the trade union

wants. I left the union and got a PC. Within two years the union had

been derecognised because of its very narrow minded stand.

APPLAUSE Isn't it a good thing that practices like that are in the, to

use Lenin's phrase, if I may, in the dustbin of history? No, I think

trade unions have a role to play in the future. But practise like that?

Practices like that are dying off. You will (Inaudible) we never had

that, by the way. Down the mines you did what you were told to do. If we

kill trade unions now, which the Tories are trying to do, lo and

behold the workers of the future. What killed the coal mine industry,

30 years on, some people say it was Mrs Thatcher and some say it was the

strikes. No, it was the Ridley plan. She brought in an American and he

did the work for her. Without those strikes what would the mining

industry have looked like today? Very different. There's some great

challenges for school in this country. They are closing all the

coal-power powered power stations. If you employ politicians, they are

paying a strike price for renewable energy where you can't afford to

generate gas or coal. That's a political manipulation. Remove

politicians. Apart from Ronnie. Thank you all very much for taking

part. Thank you. APPLAUSE If you have something to

say about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and follow

the link to where you can join in the discussion online. Or contribute

on Twitter. We're also debating live this morning: Is animal testing ever

justified? And does religion make you happy? So get tweeting or

emailing on those topics now, or send us any other ideas or thoughts

you may have about the show. .

Two universities here in the northeast of England have been

causing controversy with experiments on animals. Newcastle University was

in trouble for operating on baboons in Kenya to find treatments for

stroke patients. And now there are protests against its work here,

where macaque monkeys have been used for research into shakes and tremors

in humans. And Durham University has reported a sevenfold increase in its

use of animals in research. Is animal testing ever justified?

Professor Paul Flecknell, hello, where are you Paul? Laboratory

animal science at Newcastle University. I'm sure nobody in the

studio will suggest that experiments on our closest relatives, the great

apes, the chimps, that's been phased out in the western world,

intelligent, sentient, cognitive, it is amazing that this goes on

elsewhere. Why though macaques? We use very few - I should say first of

all we use very few animals in our research programme in the UK. At

Newcastle for example it is about 10% of our total medical research

but the. The rest is, our colleagues would call alternative methods. But

it is made up for in numbers by mice. I understand this, and it will

no doubt come out, where macaques? Because they are so similar to us.

They have some parts of their brain that we have and mice don't, rats

don't, the other species that are used in labs don't. Because they are

so like us, it raises even more ethical concerns about using them in

research. Hence the point about chimps and great apes. The more like

us they are the more useful it is. Beagles are used, and cats. A lot of

people will say the fact that it works, or is effective, doesn't mean

that it is right. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.

What we are saying is that the means justify the benefits to humans. You

call me Professor. I started life as a veterinary surgeon and working in

practice and I moved into the field where I'm responsible for the

welfare of animals in laboratories. I would rather we didn't use animals

in research. As a vet, I care about animals, but I have to confess that

at the end of the day I think people matter more. If the only way that we

are going to make rapid progress towards treating some of the major

disease problems that we still have is to use animals for part of that

research, then it is ethical to do so. White bun ethical to say no

we're not going to do, that we are going to deny ourselves all of those

research options. APPLAUSE Dr Jarrod Bailey, we have

the strongest ethical rules in the world in this country. We are

leading the way, are we not, in the ethical treatment of lab animals?

They may or may not be the strong nest the world. What we are - you

can claim that they are the least-worst. We find out what really

goes on in labs not from the PR from the industries that use them, from

the people that use them, but from undercover investigations. People

who go in unknown and take footage of what is being done. What's

happening to these macaques, do you imagine? Fist of all they suffer

from just being in a laboratory. This is scientifically acknowledged.

They become stressed just from routine procedures from handling,

seek people experimenting on them, having blood taken. Experimentally

they are poisoned. They have new chemicals and substances tested,

forced down tubes into their stomachs. They are forested to

inhale them. They are have their skulls removed, things implanted

into their brains. Experiments that are very invasive and cause a huge

amount of suffering. That's what really goes on. Theeth cat argument

not only involves what is being done to the animals, and there is strong

evidence that there the suffering of animals in labs much greater than

the people who do it would have you believe, so the cost is greater. But

is that animal experimentation really essential to human cures and

treatments to furthering the medicine? Or is it incidental? Sit

counterproductive? There is a lot of evidence that I and other scientists

like me have helped gather to show it is counterproductive. Animal

research is misleading. They are not little furry humans and we would be

much better, as you mentioned with chimpanzees in the US, that's

stopped, and it has stopped because an independent science panel looked

at the evidence... Because they are so like us. They didn't need to use

chimps had. Even though they are the most like us they are not like us

enough. If chimps aren't good enough, how on earth can any other

animal species be good enough? We don't need to use animals?

APPLAUSE To come back on the point that all eur mimates are -- our

primates are frightened and distressed, we used nine macaques

last year out of 25 animals which were primarily rats, mice and fish.

Those animals were bred in captivity in the UK for research. When I go in

to see them, they don't cower into a corner. They try to steal my badge

and mobile phone, because that would be entertaining for them, not so

much for me. Do they have a play area? They have play areas. They

interact with their cage mates, their pen mates. I should say, is

we've taken round nonscientists to look at them. Yesterday Steve Owen,

and this backs up what you are saying, he said, I love prime axts

when you work with a monkey study you really get to know them. In the

end I prefer that it is me that puts them down. I know Steve and yes he

will genuinely care about then answer. For our technical staff and

the scientists who work with these animals, they do become individuals

and it does become very hard when it is the end of a study and the animal

has to be humanely killed. Ben? We are, you say there a maul number of

animals being uxtd last year we used 4. 1 million animals in the UK

medical experiments, the highest number in a generation. For those 4.

1 million animals we don't have 4. 1 million new vaccines. There are 20

inspectors, less than that now in the UK, for those 4. 1 million

animal as. My colleague here did fantastic work. They went undercover

at the Imperial College... A lot were fish and mice, have to say.

People draw the lines at the most cognitive animals, macaque as

include oozed. But fish and mice, people don't have such a problem

with that That's very bizarre to me. All animals have the ability to feel

pain and fear like we do. No, they don't. One of the reasons why, and I

would fully support Jarrod and his campaign to not use chimpanzees,

their brains are so like us and their emotional awareness is close

us the that they feel pain and distress... But not a macaque? There

is a difference. To say that a zebra fish, especially one at five days

old, when it is about this big, feels same way that a mouse or a

rats or a macaque does. They certainly feel pain. They have

desires to live out their own live lease. So if that is the case we

should ban fishing. Many species of animal, from rodents up, have

similar structures and pathways in the brain that deal with the

perception of pain and suffering, how they respond to it, having their

natural behaviour is prevented and inhibited, and how they respond to

incarceration. To claim that these animals are not suffering regularly

and chronically is ridiculous, it has been proven, they have elevated

levels of stress hormones, and there is another element. When animals are

stressed, as animals in laboratories are, this is a fact, it effects

their general health, the genes in their bodies. It is

counter-productive to the experiment? Of course. You struggle

to apply those results to normal monkeys and rats in the wild. A

moment ago, Doctor Bailey said they were so different, it would not be

scientifically useful, now he says they are so similar... They are

similar in the way they suffer and respond to pain. Over time, we have

seen so many medical breakthroughs, almost all of the breakthroughs that

we see come from animal research. Decades ago, the polio vaccine, the

TB vaccine. A lot of research into veterinary medicine. There are other

ethical points. In this country, we were allowed to capture primates in

the wild, babblings were caught, Newcastle University were in Kenyan,

that was exposed, and you stopped it, because it is clearly

unethical. As anyone will realise, you have to kill ten to get one. It

was outsourced. Newcastle United... I have a one track mind sometimes!

Because at University outsourced it, that is what you stop. To get one,

you have to kill ten. They fight for their family. That is another

ethical issue. That is why we purpose breed animals. The issue of

going to Kenyan, the Primate research Centre captures them from

the wild, where they are going to be killed as pests. The research worker

thought it was better to use an animal that would otherwise have

been killed. Why did you stop? There was a change in the policy of the

research councils that oversee the funding, and we thought about the

animals' experience, and decided it would be better not to do that work

with wild caught animals. About the medical breakthroughs having come

about from animal testing, it is a legal requirement to test all new

drugs on animals, it does not mean it is the best way. The developed --

the development process was through animals. Without animals, it would

not have come about. We are not spending the money in new

technology. You released figures to say that less than 4.036% of all

research and develop and funding is on trying to produce alternatives to

animal testing, it is inertia and lack of political will which means

we have found ourselves in this situation. The lady there. I am a

psychology student, we have studied animal studies, the ratio of ethics

inducing animal studies. I do not agree with the fact that we can

stress out of monkeys to see how their biology develops, but to an

extent, a lot of us would not be here if no animal testing was done.

It is horrible, it should not be done, certainly not for cosmetic

purposes, but some of it has to be done in the initial stages. We all

draw different lines. Yes, but at the end of the day, as he said, we

choose these animals because of their similarities to us. They feel

pain. You are causing another living being pain in doing that. If we have

to use them, should recognise that they feel pain, and it is not always

going to be a happy life. It was the point that we are looking to use

babblings, and you can understand that from a scientific perspective,

because the similarities exist, but we then have to look at, why would

you use the five-day-old angelfish? If you are talking about only 5%

being primates, with their similarities, that would suggest

that 95% were animals that have such insignificant similarities that,

what could we gain from that? The more these animals are like us, the

more useful they are, the more of an ethical problem we have. You said

earlier that if chimpanzees are not similar enough, what is? They are

still very different. They can be similar in useful ways. For

Parkinson's disease, the frontal and temporal lobes are enough. Animals

are not humans, we have special cognitive things, notably language,

which enable us to reflect on our thought processes. There is

increasing evidence about those higher cognitive species having

their own forms. An interesting point, some chimpanzees are more

intelligent than some human beings. Then, but not and Moore said he and

-- and more sentience and cognitive. The experiment being referred to is

the chimpanzees' working memory, they can identify where things are.

Humans have to think consciously about that. Chimpanzees have that

ability automatically. That does not mean it is intelligence, it is a

different type of thing. When you see animals moving towards something

or away from something, that does not necessarily mean they are

feeling fear, they are showing a response. Fear is a uniquely human

emotion. It depends whether you define it according to behaviour

or... Dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, research coming out...

You can see when animals are distressed. If you are going to use

them, you have to use the absolute minimum amount. We are talking about

how close to humans the animals are, if we are torturing animals, how

human are we? That is emotive language, you are right,

stop people doing it. Animal testing will not stop tomorrow. Anybody who

has taken a dog or a cat to the vet will no that animals fear things.

That is nonsense. Something cannot be ethically defensible that is not

scientifically defensible. We cannot say it is OK to test on animals when

scientifically it is not OK. I would like to briefly run through some of

the things that we have found. Chimpanzees use in America. Despite

the citrus claims from those who use them that medical research would

fail. It stopped based on the evidence we gathered, that 100 AIDS

vaccines have been tested on chimps and did not work in people. In

animals, well over 1000/ treatment. They do not work in humans. If you

stop it, and get outsourced to countries who do not have any

standards or regulations. Primates, there is a growing one in China,

they are disappearing into laboratories. I am looking at this

from a human perspective, where are we going to get tools and

treatments? The pharmaceutical industry will tell you they are in

serious trouble, they are so reliant on animal testing. 19 out of 20

drugs that look good in animals do not work in people, even some of the

ones that make it on later removed. We are still looking for clues for

cancer, we need an AIDS vaccine, because animal tests do not work. We

do not have a cancer cure, but we have treatments which are pushing up

the survival rate, breast cancer has gone from 40% to 75%, testicular

cancer even further, next to the research on animals. The law says

that if there is another viable method, you must use it. Does that

will not apply? Of course. The University over the road, looking at

the effect of green tea extract on animals, study people who drink

green tea, you can do it. The effect of mint on mice, putting them on a

hot plate and seeing how it burns their feet. Studied this on people.

We do. You know that animals feel fear. Where we differ with a

psychology is, are the animals conscious of their fear in the same

way that I am? I can it is about fear. That is why you would not do

it on a chimp? Yes, there are differences. I do not claim that

Bush do not feel pain, but it is in a different way from other species.

Each species has its unique sensation. To go back to this idea

about other ways of doing things that scientists are ignoring, as I

said at the outset, about 10% of the total medical research in Newcastle

has some involvement of animals. We are using patients, human

volunteers, the same laboratory that happy controversy about Kenya, it

works with people, with volunteers. They do brain slice work, individual

cells in a ditch, and try and work out what is happening, but at some

stage, you need to go back to the whole animal, and if it is not

ethical to make it human, you have to find another approach, which

usually involves a laboratory animal. You can join in the debates

by logging onto the website. You can follow the link to the online

discussion. Or you can tweet. Tell us what you think about our last big

Ashton, does religion make you happy? If you would like to be in

the audience for a future show, you can e-mail us. Southampton next

week, then Glasgow and Bristol. This Thursday has been dubbed

International Day of Happiness in support of the UN's humanitarian

efforts. If you want to take part, you need to post a video of yourself

being happy online. There is a link between religious affiliation and

happiness, especially in society is a link between religious affiliation

and happiness, especially in societies facing adversity. But does

religion make you happy? Does religion make you happy? Does it

elevate the quality of your life? We have to understand the difference,

we have to separate religion as an institutional organisation... We

have to, if we want a mature debate. Or else people will take cheap

shots. Faith, belief in God. The characteristic that makes a

spirituality. I do believe it, I am a Christian, a Catholic Christian,

the gospel values which I hold the, they help bring me in connection

with other people, through communities, let's say the Church

committee, for example, the local parish, something like that. There

is an understanding, and responsibility, to be aware of each

other. For the happiness side of it, also, I think it is important to

understand what happiness means. We can have one side of happiness which

is pleasure, which is great, not a problem. But the happiness that I

think spirituality can give you, that a real faith can give you, if

the deep joy that is spoken about in the Bible and in the gospels

particularly. differences. I do not claim that

Bush do not feel pain, Some people get fellowship at the golf club.

Absolutely. It is not exclusive. So it is a valid cation of your world

view, is that what you are talking about, like-mind people? Snow Very

much not exclusive. It is that we are all people, we are all human

being on this planet and somehow we are connected, and that there is a

responsibility to be aware of the other person, particularly the most

vulnerable this societies. That's what true gospel values is about.

Ronnie Campbell is happier when he is with Ed Miliband than when she

with George Osborne. LAUGHTER Aren't you? Well...

LAUGHTER Who wouldn't be? Do you understand me? Yes, I do. There is

an understanding, there is a connection to in that scenario would

be an ideology of society, which is fine. Similar, like-minded. It can

be, yes. It is very important to get that distinction between the

institution. I'm hammering that home. Hammer it home all you want.

There are great schisms at the moment which are causing

unhappiness. You are a revert, are you happier now? I am. It is

difficult to be happy after that animal experimentation debate. That

was well depressing, but no, seriously, it really was

heart-breaking. But the Koran, the holy book in which I have faith,

says verily in the remembrance of God do hearts find tranquillity. I

think from the point of view of a fallible, a finite human being to

contemplate, to remember, to remember the Washington who was

perfect, who was all-wise, who was almighty, all good, it cheers me um.

It cheers you up? Right, so your life has changed hasn't it? You used

to drink a lot and so forth. I wasn't a plonky!

LAUGHTER But you look back on that time of life and you think, that was

all just frivolous nonsense, now I've got something deep in my life,

yes? I think Mia hit the nail on the head that there are different types

of happiness. Getting smashed on Stella does bring a certain type of

happiness. Transient. Transient happiness. Practising my religion

and believing in it, that gives me a different type of happiness. I refer

the lat tore the former. Although I can still have some worldly

pleasures as well, I'm not a hermit. When are you at your happiness? --

your happiest? From the point of view of a Muslim, theled with world,

even the most mundane affairs, are imbued with meaning. We believe that

the whole (Inaudible) is a manifestation of the creative

capacity of almighty God. Even making cheese on toast can be a

mind-blowing experience, because everything is God in action. So

walking through the countryside and looking at the creation of God, as I

see it, that's probably when I'm at my happiest. OK. Matt? Exactly as

you described it. Religion definitely is statistically

associated with being happy. The more adverse circumstances you have,

the more effect it has. But not only that, the actual, the religious

make-up of the country also has an effect. The more religious is

country is overall the greater the effect religion has on your own

happiness. Explain that more. The UK... Probably more people are part

of that group. Specifically the UK. Fairly secular compared to most

countries. Take it - an African nation, people in Africa will get

more benefit from that religion than the people in the UK where there is

less of a religious nature. That has to be looked at within the context

of the socioeconomic status of that country. We are a relatively rich

country, our levels of happiness are high compared to other countries. We

might reach a ceiling effect. What's interesting is the way it works. One

of the ways, like Mia was saying, you are part of a group where you

get respect, where people share your values. You have morals and they are

shared. We also get personal meaning from life. If for example you are

finding it difficult in your life, you are having difficult

circumstances, not only does prayer maybe enable you to cope with that

but there's a different meaning beyond the materialistic gains that

might be there as well. You find this, the things that people pray

for change. It is a consolation as well isn't it? It may be a

consolation. It is about meaning, having self efficacy. If you are

elderly and have lost a partner, you think maybe you'll meet again, not

just elderly, it is a huge comfort isn't it? It is the terra management

thing... There's a label for everything! There. It is nice to

think we might see people afterwards. This might help us deal

with that. There are reasons to believeta humans are predisposed to

believe in an afterlife without teachings of God. It is honouring

the ancestors. I grew up in Northern Ireland. Very religious. I think a

lot of the attraction of religion, quite a lot of religions offer

redemption and forgiveness. With that you can see why for example

somebody with blood on his hands, like Tony Blair, wants to be

Catholic, because he feels he can get forgiveness. That's part of the

attraction people have for it. But away from that point, which we have

debated for, the former Prime Minister, Martin is saying there's a

lot of people who are river no-one Northern Ireland. There is sectarian

sectarianism... And in the whole world. That's the politics of

religion. What we were talking about today is the spirit at of the

individual. Can that aid your own happiness. Those people were engaged

with their religion and it was making them happy, they wouldn't be

going into the politics of each other if they were religion. If they

are engageded with the true sense of what the religion is about, not the

politics of it. Richard? Without making life of it, if you look at

what faith, is people coming together for a common purpose, we

are in Newcastle. Thursday morning, the happiness index would be higher

if St St James's Park victory on Wednesday was for the home and not

the away team. Les? We need to remember what really does bring us

happiness. If you look at what the happiness... What brings you

happiness as a human? As a humanist, helping other folks. When you

analyse it, when you see people in times of distress, you find when

they are in real distressful time, off as a bereavement or something,

what really brings them happiness, what makes their life worthwhile is

the fact that they are able to help people. That is the fundamental

thing. APPLAUSE You don't need religion to

do that. The man at the back. Good morning. I was brought up a Roman

Catholic. I'm now not practising, but I do have a lot of happy

memories spent at church as a child. Whether that was my interaction with

the religion, my interaction with other people, or my interaction with

the holy book, I don't know. However, if it makes happy, meeting

everybody once a week... Are you happy now? I don't know. I don't

know where that happiness came from, was it the people, with the book or

the religion? I don't know. If you are happy doing that once a week or

more, and spending time with like-minded people, knock yourself

out and go for it. Whatever makes you happy. You, sir. I gave up

religion and I've never been happier ever since. Daniel will have a word

with you later. He will fail miserably. I've found that the more

religious a country, the more suffering is you will see on its

streets. That's just a correlation rather than a causative fact. Where

there is more suffering people are more likely to be religious rather

than religion causing the suffering. That is partly because in those

times there are more things that prayer can help you deal with. Is it

not that it makes the population more willing to accept their

suffering, because they are told they will get their reward in

Heaven, so they are more willing to take it more. That could be how the

country works but it doesn't mean the country isn't coping. The

mechanism by which it works is complicated. You may or may not be

happy with that. As a psychologist I'm trying to describe the human

phenomenon. When are you at your happiest? Today, meeting you, in

Nicky. LAUGHTER While I do appreciate

everybody's views and I do think that as a Christian myself religion

can make you happier and it is a spiritual journey, but at the same

time I think the problems in our modern culture come when people take

a political viewpoint on it or go beyond the individual spirit at of

it. Then we get huge problems, killings in the name of honour. We

get radical people from all religions acting in the wrong way. I

think that's wren when it can cause grave unhappiness. I think there was

a point you wanted to drum home and that is the point. It is when people

make the religion itself their God. Religion is there as a structure to

help you manifest your faith. How would you change that? I did agree

with what you said earlier about helping people. As a humanist that

would be very important to you. As a Christian that's fundamental to me.

To gospel values. You only have to look at what's happening now,

particularly in the Catholic Church with Pope Francis, who is

rejuvenating the Catholic Church because he is bringing it back to

what the gospel values are all about. He's keeping it real is he?

Yes. What happens in many religious groups, they tend to focus on

helping their own. That's not to say they don't help nonreligious groups,

but there is a certain element of it. It is quite strong, particularly

in the Muslim faith, I also work with Save the Children. It is a

secular charity. But when we are fundraising we have to identify

certain project projects for Muslim donors. Because they insist that if

money is going to be used it should be used for Muslims. So you are in

an in-group it excludes the out-group? It can do. The I think

you are trying to separate the politics of religion and the spirit

at of religion but I don't think you really have a choice in modern

religions today. I think that's is very frustrating and that doesn't

make you happy. Daniel? Sorry, but I really don't want to let Les get

away with that. It is just a load of rubbish, the idea that Muslims or

people of any other religion only done to causes that are going to

benefit people of their faith. He said that can be the case? But it's

not the norm. I can say that as someone who is very much part of the

Muslim community. I've seen with my own eyes Muslims raising money for

charities which supersede all religions are, things like Marie

Curie. It is not just Muslims who get cancer. Actually the evidence

shows that although religious people do give more to charity, they give

more to charity specifically to ones associated with their faith. They do

favour and buy answer-group charities. If you see someone on the

TV who looks like your own mother or father suffering is, that will

probably strike a chord within you to donate rather than someone who

looks very much different and might not strike a chord. If you turned on

the television and sea someone like him, would you donate? I'm

initiativing nothing to anybody! LAUGHTER I like the idea of religion

and faith, but why do so many organised religions, why are these

divisions causing all these trouble? Pope Francis knows it is not about

the religion but the faith. Why are there divisions? Personal spirit at,

your own beliefs? Thank you all very much for taking part. .

As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter. Next week

we're in Southampton, so join us then. But for now, goodbye. Have a

great Sunday.