Episode 1 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: doctors on strike, free speech on campus,

and the future for Anglicans worldwide.

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

It's great to see you. Good to be back.

Today we're live from the University of Kent in Canterbury.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

On Tuesday, junior doctors in the NHS will go out on strike,

in protest at the changes in their working conditions planned

It will be the first time in 40 years that doctors have

And in 1975 it led to closures of many hospital

In November last year, thousands of operations

and outpatient appointments were cancelled, even though

a planned strike was called off the night before.

Nevertheless, 98% of doctors balloted support taking strike

action in protest at an 11% pay rise and a restructuring of hours

which they say will reduce their overall earnings and put

Should doctors have the right to strike?

Kate Andrews from the Adam Smith Institute, people argue that,

ultimately, this strike is absolutely in the interests of

patients and the interests of the NHS. Away from the intricacies of

the arguments, as to the strike, the deals, the offers, you think it is

actually immoral for doctors to strike. I think it is unethical and

dangerous. There are consequences to every strike, when two workers

strike, people are late to work, 20 just strike kids learn the alphabet

later but when doctors strike they put lives at risk. I don't

necessarily blame junior doctors, think they want to go to work, they

want to wake up in the morning and help people. I blame the British

Medical Association. It has become deeply political. They put out a

statement online encouraging people to come and strike with them, come

and pick it. In that statement they made it clear that this was the

first step to achieving more strikes and more political objectives that

are left wing. Why do you believe it is unethical? You say it is left

wing and that is clearly from the Adam Smith Institute. Wider you feel

it is unethical and 98% of doctors believe that ultimately it will be

of the NHS. We will be speaking to patients in a minute. Unethical if

you are putting lives at risks, this is what happens when you have a

Napoli on health care, if you have one provider, bring everyone

together and tell them to strike you are putting everything will patient

under that monopoly at risk. It wouldn't matter if they were

promoting a right-wing or a left-wing agenda, a medical

Association shouldn't have political motivation. They should treat all

patients of all beliefs. There should not be a political agenda.

APPLAUSE Doctor Khan, ultimately, doctors

striking, is that not against the calling and the mission and

principles of being a doctor? It will be unethical and it would be

against the principles of being a doctor if we did not strike! OK? 'S

a lot of people have this perception they will be no doctors on strike

days. Not the case. Only junior doctors are striking so there will

be a lot of other non-junior doctors covering those services. Doctors

have never put patient safety at risk and never will. And that will

not happen on strike days. Yes, they will be logistical disruption...

Junior doctors formed the majority. They do although other doctors will

cover them. They will be no risk to patient safety. Research has been

done on all strike action doctors have taken between 1970s expand 2003

and what honesty does not increase. That is scientifically incorrect.

Because operations are cancelled? There are lots of reasons, that may

be one. The second thing is, if we want the NHS to survive, if we want

an NHS where patients are treated safely it is essential that we

oppose this junior contract. It will create an NHS where doctors are

overworked and exhausted and that will put lives at risk. And if we

continue to bleed doctors, if they continue emigrating do to the

pressures, for example, one third of the entire workforce as emigrated in

the last five years and thousands of GPs apply to work abroad every year

and if that keeps happening the NHS will not survive. It is our absolute

duty to carry out... APPLAUSE

I want to clarify, you are asserting on live TV that when this strike

happens you do not think single patient will be put at risk? Not one

single patient whose health and life is but at risk? I want to be clear

about that. It is outrageous. It is not true. As an academic I have

looked at the evidence. It is clear that mortality does not increase

with the strike. We will find out. I'm interested as a social policy

academic and I also have long-term experience as a user of the NHS. Of

the least desirable aspects of the NHS, that is, mental health

services. I must be honest, who do I trust more comedy professionals I

have worked with, or people who work with think tanks? Let's get down to

basics. When we are talking about the NHS that you describe as a

monopoly, loved public service, what we talking about is a relationship.

The key relationship between us and doctors, or it could be social

workers or it be nurses. A personal, often intimate, sensitive

relationship. But there is always another party in this relationship

which sets the tenor and provides the structure and makes possible the

operation of a system and that is policymakers and politicians. And

politicians have their own preoccupations. Their own party

concerns. And I suspect looking at the fact that we have not had a

strike like this for more than 40 years that this is the real problem.

So can we really gets down to the basics, which is who, in the event

of a problem, would you trust, as somebody needing help, a politician,

or a junior doctor? APPLAUSE

Audience, raise your hands, let's get a quick feel on the general

ethical principle of this strike. Gentleman in the black, what would

you like to say? The fact that doctors have decided to strike, it

is not something they take on lightly. Surely that shows the

severity of the situation. And you, Sir, in the brown jacket, good

morning. Good morning. The BMA is not a political organisation. The

politicisation of this issue has been pushed by the government which

has politicised every public sector worker, they have every reason to

strike and the fact that they are a monopoly is a good reason because

they have got no other way to turn, they can't leave their job unless

they go abroad. When the firemen strike the army steps in. With

doctors, there's no cover. Let's hear from the patients. Of which you

are also one! Anyone else? I be with you in a second. The guy in the

black shirt? It's Mr Case of morality. If you have workers, no

worker in every sector ever will be able to operate where you say, it is

our rules and you have no power to negotiate. The power to negotiate is

very different from the right to strike. Striking is part of

negotiation, it always has been, part of the negotiation process. If

you can't say, I've got as much value as any other worker, we are

saying that these people are not important enough to be allowed to

strike! APPLAUSE

Gerry O'Brien? You've been on the church of England is an odd for 30

years. You have considered many issues. I'd like to ask a practical

question of the doctors. The purpose of the strike is that you take

action that hurts someone who is in a position to do something about

your grievance. If you work for a department store, if you go on

strike customers go elsewhere and shareholders lose dividends and

managers lose bonuses, and you hope something good will come of it. Is

the NHS comparable? Doctors go on strike they won't put the minister

who could do something about it, they won't hurt the management of

the hospital who will still get bonuses, they will put patients,

people in no position to do anything about their grievances. So the

concept of doctors striking is wholly misconceived because their

primary concern should be for the welfare of the patient. It will

cause delays and inconvenience. And put pressure on the government. We

are having this discussion as a result so it has created awareness,

clearly. It will not put patient safety at risk. There are lots of

non-junior doctors in the NHS like me who will cover their services.

Patient's lives will not be put at risk. Junior doctors have never put

patient safety at risk. The government is continuously, has been

continually stoking fears among the public. They even used the Paris

attacks, the big terrorist attack in Paris when a lot of people died,

people were grieving and the government decided this was a great

opportunity, a great chance to stoke fear against doctors by suggesting,

insulting us by suggesting that we might not coming to treat patients

if, God forbid, something like this happens. Peter, be with you in a

second. That is the depth to which the government has sunk. And worst

of all they have manipulated research to support this completely

ill-conceived idea of a seven-day NHS, saying that mortality rises if

they are not enough doctors on weekends. That is simply not true,

as the author of the study says. Gerry, and Peter, I have you on my

list. I can hardly believe my ears, Doctor proposing this course of

action on the grounds that it will not harm patients? Should we not be

doing something that will enhance the outcome for patients like being

on duty and doing the job? We were chatting earlier over coffee and you

said you actually supported what they were saying and what they

needed for a better NHS. So you are supportive of the reasons for

striking but you do not think they should strike because of the ethical

principle that we are discussing. Because at the end of the day they

are doing something which is fundamental to people's lives and it

is putting people at risk. Kate has made the point so I will not labour

it. You cannot say with any degree of confidence that this will not put

patients's lives at risk if you go on strike. That's nonsense. The

point we are all missing is that we don't pay junior doctors in. The

evidence is there. The problem is that we are still approaching it

with a narrow-minded view. We still believe that throwing money at the

problem is the answer, that we need to spend more of our tax money on

the NHS. We have tried this for years and years and years and it

does not work. We need to think about how we run our services. You

can't have free health care at a point of service at every turn. It

doesn't work economically. It can't be funded in that way. We need to

move the whole debate. We move from a specific strike of a group of

people in the health service too, we no longer should have the founding

principles of the NHS, that it is a free service that is universal!

Let's go back to the relationship I started with, the one we know, which

you are hopping on, between patient and doctor. Let's remember the other

element in that relationship, the politicians. Politicians don't offer

much in the wake of medical care. Their responsibility is to make sure

that the system works. Not necessarily into with their

particular ideology but the system works. When we reach crises as we

have done here, that tells me that the politicians are failing in their

job. The real failure is not of junior doctors or of all the other

people working long hours as you rightly say, at an adequate wages

but of the people running this society. We vote them in to run it

and they are failing in this instance.

What about it costs the taxpayer nearly ?300,000 to train each NHS

doctor to NHS foundation level 2. And it costs the taxpayer every year

to pay the PFI, ?1.5 to ?2 billion. There's 80 billion quid of money

going to fund money companies from the NHS because of cross-party

failure as a system of funding public services. This isn't a finger

pointing at the Tories or they Liberal Democrats or at Labour. All

those political parties have failed. That's where the real money is being

wasted and it never enters the headlines. PFI is hugely

controversial but of course because of those expensive hospitals,

because of the needs of patients we need to be having a 24-7 health

service and you need doctors at the top of their game and absolutely

well rewarded, after all that training, much of which they've paid

for being at university paying for their fees. We are in a different

world from a while ago, one might say. So doctors absolutely need to

be looked after? Yes, but not out of the public purse, because it is not

affordable. It is nonsense to think that it is. Every other country in

the world that we talk about, Germany, Australia, all these places

manage to successfully run a healthcare service which is

available to people at all livings of society without it costing a

bomb. Why are we the only country in the top ten of GDP that couldn't do

this properly? Come on. It is not about the left-wing or the

right-wing, but as the British public we've failed to have this

debate properly and ask ourselves honest questions. You cannot have

the service where the incentives aren't there for the responsible of

the general public to take responsibility for their open

health. Take responsibility for their own health? Yes. If you have

free healthcare provision, what's the impetus on you to say I'm not

going to consume 20 bottles of wine a week, because I'm not going to

expect Joe Bloggs or Susan Jones to pay for my lifestyle. It was the NHS

which helped us to reduce massively the rates of smoking and the

appalling costs put on public services by private smoking

companies. Let's remember. That's entirely debatable. Good morning.

Hi. You are suggesting here it sounds like you are grouping a lot

of NHS users as time wasters, which I think is ludicrous. And the word

harm or hurt was used when talking about doctors striking. I believe no

doctor would ever strike if they thought it would harm the public.

APPLAUSE. Back to Gerry. No doctor would strike if he thought white

harm the public? I would very much hope that no doctor would, but the

purpose of being a doctor is not not to cause harm, it is to go good.

What if they believe striking will ultimately be doing good because it

will be in the interests of patients and it will be in the midterm, long

term, evening short-term interests of the NHS is this they believe they

are doing it for the best possible reasons, not selfish reasons I would

respectfully suggest that the people they might hurt or disadvantage

would not be those who are in a position to change their terms and

conditions of service. What they need is something that's far more

focused at the people that are able to do that. Kate? Two points. The

first is that even just a few months ago the OECD pointed out that the

NHS provides poor to mediocre care compared to the rest of the

developed countries, and in comparison to their healthcare

systems. It is not just patient any more strucking from the NHS and its

aability to... It is punishing doctors because it is not able to

pay them at salaries they most likely deserve. By not acknowledging

that you are doing more harm to junior doctors than good. The

majority of the public is on your side when it comes specifically to

junior doctors and wanting to support their pay, and Jeremy Hunt

and the BMA have come to many agreements but the BMA and the

junior doctors are walking out over tiny points. Why don't you ask for a

referendum? If you believe so strongly people support junior

doctors in the NHS why don't you ask for something more peaceful than a

strike? Ask the public to come to a vote on it. We've got too many

referendums. But this one affects people's lives. There are other

options than striking. What's the pay for a junior doctor, ?23,000 a

year, that's after the university fees, the long hours. Huge

responsibility and a very young age, arguably as much responsibility as

any consultant. People's lives in their hands. Do you really think

?23,000 is enough? I don't think those are the premises by which we

measure whether somebody should be paid more or not. What you want is

the west people in the job and you pay the market rate for that. Our

junior doctors are leaving the profession in droves because they

are not paid enough money. It is what you have to pay them to have

good doctors doing the job well. Recruitment and retention. That's

the reality. A last word. I would fully unreservedly accept a

referendum. I'm sure the vast majority of people would support

doctors over the spin doctors that we have.

APPLAUSE. On-lines On a second point, in terms of the efficiency of

the NHS, a Commonwealth Fund Study that was done showed that the NHS is

the most efficient healthcare system in the world. No it isn't. The OECD

study that Kate referred shows that we have below average levels of

funding as compared to other developed countries, the lowest

level of funding in the whole of the G7. Kate's dissenting over the

Commonwealth Fund Study. Maybe that's a conversation we can have

afterwards. I can't wait. Thank you all very much indeed for your

contributions with. 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

We're also debating live this morning from Canterbury: Should

And can the Anglican Communion stay together?

So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other

ideas or thoughts you may have about the show.

Universities used to be centres for debate, places where any topic

could be discussed provided speakers from all sides were invited to take

Learning to argue was all part of a university education

Now freedom of speech is often at odds with the new concept

of "safe spaces", where people can be reassured that their views,

circumstances and lifestyle choices will always be treated with respect

Should universities foster free speech?

Payton, it is good to see you. Thank you for coming in. You would

describe yourself as gender fluid, non-binary. That's right. And you

were pretty outraged by Germaine Greer's comments about transgendered

people. I would like to start with your telling us and explaining to

people who are maybe not acquainted with the term. What is a safe space?

Tell us about this concept The problem with safe spaces is there is

no universal idea of what a safe space constitutes. Basically,

fundamentally it means that any student that has, that is for

example a different, of a different sexuality or transgender or have

mental health issues. Any student that would suffer from oppression

because of those reasons, they are not further harmed by the

university. It is about the university taking care of those

students. Not harmed or offended, they should not have to be

confronted by people who might cause them more anxiety? Yes. It is not

offence so much that's brought up a lot. We are not talking about

offence really. There's a difference between someone saying something

horrible about your mother and someone fundamentally dehumanising

you because of a characteristic that you can't control. That's what we

are talking about, not being upset because someone called you a name.

We are talking about language and behaviours and attitudes that

contribute to a dehumanisation of a group of people. So those who would

come on to campus and say such things which would not offend but be

so contrary to the values and lifestyles of certain groups should

be stopped from going on to campus and speaking? A lot of people assume

that I'm pretty hard on something like that. But it is a much more

complicated issue than people lend to. Yes. I think that, to a point,

and I think that everyone has their own personal line on this... Let's

talk about Germaine Greer and her comments on transgendered people.

Your problem with that? When you've got Germaine Greer, a respected

author and academic, and on women's studies. She said a transgendered

person is essential through sex they were born into and is not the one

they choose to become, or if choose to become is the right expression.

You think that was outrageous? It is not outrageous on its own, it was

kind of disrespectful. It is not for her to police other people's

expresses and their feelings. But when she is comparing transpeople to

rapists and murderers for example, that's fundamentally wrong. She said

a transgendered person should be considered to be a man. And she

described that hand-shake as a rapist grip. So go along and

robustly debate. Marshall your arguments, challenge these people

and bring them enlightenment, have them there, free speech, no

boundaries, anything goes. Lots of people say that but no-one believes

that. Fern believes it. I believe it too. Fundamentally, and on the note

of of Jermaine year, she said things about FGM as well. Unless we hear

them, we can't combat them. A free market of ideas. With the Germaine

Greer thing as it blew up, information was lost in the fray,

but what happened in that situation is we had initially I sent an e-mail

to the University and we tried to open communications between the

University, the LGBT association and the women's officer and the feminist

network to try and either change it to a panel or maybe have some

transawareness events alongside it we were told that isn't happening.

So there is no panel, no transgender awareness events. She turns up,

gives a speech. Isn't the ultimate choice, don't go? Sure, but when the

university, part of what they advertise about themselves is that

they were top of the Stonewall Gay By Degree safe space for LGBT

members, that's something they advertise. So you've got

transpeople... The whole point is that university should be a space

where you create ideas and have those conversations. University

selling themselves on certain things, take them off the list of

Stonewall but don't shut the door to people that can enlighten and

empower by having conversations. There is nothing more dehumanising

to me when somebody deprives me of the choice to listen to whoever I

want to. APPLAUSE. There is nothing more

dehumanising than to have the assumption that you and I or anybody

in the room lacks the moral resources to listen to people. What

about transgendered people on the bus, they get abuse all the time,

why should they get it on campus. White supremacists from the far

right or Islamist far right coming on, people with appalling views, on

campus. I hope that you and I have the moral resources to deal with

Islamist radicals. Rather than force them underground and pretend they

don't exist in the way we are doing at the moment because we are scared

to debate them. I would rather they were brought out in the open and we

can demonstrate that a moral and open society has more authority than

this attempt on free speech. People on campuses are acting as the mirror

image of the rally haddists who said, these from boundaries, you

cannot go behind that. All these people creating regulations and

rules about behaviour, what's appropriate behaviour, it is to me a

totalitarian impulse which is changing the university not a

fundamental way. It is well meant but for the first time in a century

young people can no longer experiment with ideas. No longer

feel the freedom of searching for a quest for knowledge. But to be

clear, white supremacist there is would think people who are not white

are inferior and in some cases a lesser species. Species. Would be

happy with people like that on campus? I am a free speech, I would

argue with them and debate their ideals. I would like to hear your

perception on this. Well, I am agreeing with Frank here, because it

is patronising to decide on other people's behalf that they should be

protected from certain views. APPLAUSE. Can I give a example.

Please. There was a case in March of last year where a Muslim speaker was

booked to come with appalling views about women, about gays and so on.

The feminist student group, the LGBT group, the atheists wanted to go and

challenge him but the meeting was cancelled and they were prevented

from challenging him and stand up for themselves. It is patronising.

With you in just a second. I want to come to Grey Sergeant. Let me remind

people about student rights, there was a situation with one

controversial group, Cage, which was going to hold a meeting describing

Jihadi John, the nickname of the Islamic State be had, as a beautiful

young man. Tell us what happened. Basically, the National Union of

Students, senior figures in the union, had been touring the country

with Cage, outlining a bit about their history. We see their fees as

divisive and inflammatory, yet we believe they have a right to free

speech and they are entitled to come onto a campus. The problem is that

often these groups, not just this one, and others, they come on and

they share a platform with other people who agree with everything

they say. There is no robust debate or challenge. And often they can be

an vile ands were students to not feel able to stand up and challenge.

I've attended six or seven of these meetings. Did anyone challenge them?

At one event one person and challenge them. I was only there to

report on the issue. What did this person say? A young Muslim woman

from Tower hamlets, stood up, and asked the panel, this young woman

said, I can see a lot of the criticism, what I want to know is

what you would put in place to deal with radicalisation, because there

is clearly a problem. She was met with a deafening silence and she was

laughed at by the panel. She left pretty after that. Not an

environment that promotes debate. When we talk of free speech of

course universities should foster it but also go to extra efforts to post

a debate and make sure platforms are balanced. Nimco, sorry, Rose, with

you in a second, and anyone else in the audience, please put your hand

up and will come to you. Is there a situation whereby we should ensure

that people are challenged and given the confidence to do that in the

right environment? It is essentially a safe space. I agree. It is the

university, if they are going to put somebody on a panel to challenge

them, what I find interesting about this debate with Germaine Greer and

everything else, it's the gender issue, men are allowed strong views

and not women. I do not agree with what Germaine Greer says although

ultimately I think they should have the platforms they are allowed to

have. What is quite ironic is, the things you are trying to stop other

things people are fighting for across the world. Students in China,

Africa, would kill for the freedom of speech. What about university

meeting talking about rape, should men be there? Yes, I think it

depends on the context. We have had this conversation about safe spaces,

if women who are survivors of rape are there, I don't think men should

be there. That's quite different to open conversation around the

subject. There is a gap between the experience and the issue. Rose? Men

need to hear first-hand the damage they are causing. We can't ban them.

Universities are meant to be places of learning where we can challenge

and explore. So I would be deeply concerned if we are moving to a

situation where we say, we can't have this debate because it's going

to be offensive... If members of the Ku Klux Klan were flown in from

Alabama? I would be there! How do we get them to hear another view, to

listen? They've got to be learning. I think rape is different. At the

last general election Ukip got enormous coverage on many platforms

whereas the Green party got minimal coverage. It is interesting. Forget

the Ku Klux Klan. Some of the people we are talking about, whether male

or female, are very powerful people. And if people stand up as you have

done you will be dismissed as a boring old twit. I think there is a

need for safe space but and been involved in such a situation where

we invited Katie Hopkins, the right-wing journalist who described

asylum seekers as "Cockroaches" to a debate at my university. Students,

when she was introduced, turned their backs on her and very

respectfully walked out of the room. How can you do that respectfully? It

was more respectful than some of the faces that Katie made to the rest of

the panel! But I think she should have been there. My personal feeling

is that what the students did was right for them but increasingly we

will encounter these sort of divisions and conflicts, and if we

want to challenge them with got to learn new ways of doing it

effectively. But the students did not challenge it. As she said

afterwards, it was the event, what she wanted and she became the news

story afterwards, not them. The tragedy is that there are meetings

like the one you describe, the Cage one, the tragedy is that people shut

up and look at their shoelaces, they are embarrassed to stand up and I

think we need a bit of courage. There is an English tradition of

heckling. You don't have to be experienced in that! I think we need

more people going to these meetings, and instead of pushing them and we

need to expose their ideas in front of the audience. We won't always win

the argument but at least we will disrupt them enough to make an

impact. What I am scared about is that, on campuses, unless people

agree with you you don't open your mouth. People are living in

segmented sections. Not having debate. The old traditions of

university radicalism where you argue until 4am and sometimes you

get outraged yet you still argue, and the creative dynamic that that

brings you is being lost. APPLAUSE

I'm just thinking about my university days, I didn't do that

until 4am! It is interesting, Kate, after your introduction, a lot of

people are close to the opposition on this. -- Peyton I think a lot of

people agree on this. Free speech is important, yet there needs to be a

variety of opinions. It was difficult to get hold of people for

this debate who were against free speech. You don't find people who

are against it. This is the thing, as has been mentioned before, people

are afraid to stand up. For example, with Germaine Greer there wasn't a

single transgender person I know who went to that debate because, at the

end, doing a small question and answer session, somebody asked

question about whether she believed that demonising language leads to

violence against transgender people. And the entire audience were booing

at that woman. Universities are for learning. I would be worried about

wrapping students in cotton will and trying to protect them from ideas

they might find offensive, and popular. If you put moderators in

place and turn discussion into a debate that's the best way to go

about the problem. If I can, Abha, let me go to the audience, I always

deferred to a gentleman in a dog collar! We do have laws against

inciting hatred. They are too seldom used but they are there. I don't see

why people can't see this. And we invite these horrible people to come

and state their views. That's no way to talk about our front row!

LAUGHTER We can deal with it, so what are we

afraid of? Universities have two conformed to a law that will prevent

incitement to hatred on campus. There are laws in place. I'm very

much against banning people from campus but if people have a criminal

record of inciting hatred, or members of proscribed terrorist

organisation there can be grounds that they can be banned from campus,

or a debate can be enforced. You draw the line at the BNP. One more

comment before our next fascinating debate. The lady in the back row, a

quick comment? In spite of having experienced severe discrimination in

the education system because of my mental health I do hope that when I

go to university I will be able to debate with people on issues like

mental health, extremism. To deny someone the right to talk about an

issue is absurd. Thank you all. APPLAUSE

You can join in all this morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and following the link

Or you can tweet using the hashtag bbctbq.

Tell us what you think about our last Big Question too: Can

the Anglican Communion stay together?

And if you'd like to be in the audience at a future

We're in London next week, Edinburgh on 24th January,

This week, here in Canterbury, all the leaders of the Anglican

churches around the world are getting together.

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wants them to think

Can they still hope to speak with one voice for their 85 million

Given they all follow their own ideas on women,

gay people and biblical interpretation, is there any point

in pretending they're as one?

Can the Anglican Communion stay together?

Gerry O'Brien, 35 years and the Synod. 135 senior Anglicans have

sent this letter to Archbishop Justin Welby, saying, we as a Church

duty to the LGBT members of the body of Christ around the world. It goes

on to say that we have not loved them as we should, we have treated

them as a problem rather than brothers and sisters in Christ to be

embraced and celebrated, not made to feel like second-class citizens.

They call for the church to repent. Do you repent? It is an interesting

letter that has been sent by these 105 people. You skipped over the

question, do you repent? I don't want to sound like a preacher... !

All of us can agree with that letter to a point where we come to a

sticking point. We obviously repent of the way that we have treated

people badly, the thing about the church is, we accept everyone. We

want everyone to come and share what God has to say. Because our preface

that the holy spirit will change people from being rebels against God

to falling into line with what he wants. Are you a rebel against God

if you are a gay man who once a fulfilling physical relationship

with his partner and you are also a priest, are you a rebel against God?

The point is that we all rebels against God, that is what the

Anglican Church said! The only difference is the way in which

Willie Bell. -- we rebel. One problem is the Uganda churches, or

in southern Sudan, what some would see as socially regressive

attitudes, one Nigerian church elder said, sexuality was a perversion of

human dignity. These churches in Africa, are the strongholds of

bigotry? Rather strong words. Perversion of human dignity are

strong words. Those churches are sticking to the Christian faith and

they are growing which is more than we are doing in England. We are

losing members like it's going out of fashion. There, there is growth.

One bishop said to me his biggest problem was that he's planting so

many new churches that he can't find enough people to take the service. I

wish we had that problem in England. Supporting the criminalisation of my

sexuality, is that sticking to the church teachings? The

criminalisation of sexuality, that is something that governments do and

not churches. It is not the business of the Church, what is criminal and

what is not. We can say what we believe is God 's will. Davis

Mac-Iyalla wants to come in here. I disagree with my brother in many

areas. The church has not embraced everybody. The church has not

welcomed everybody. APPLAUSE

The church has not given a place to everybody. If they did we would not

have the debate that we are having today. The church has shut its door

against some sections of its members, the gay, lesbian, the

bisexual, the transgender people. I don't know what effect this meeting

will have because we had this discussion again and again, and if I

had one word for them as they meet in Canterbury it is that they should

listen to the holy spirit and welcome everyone and show proper

Christian principles. Catechist.

APPLAUSE. Don't you have to get in line with the modern world? I

entirely agree with you that the church may not have treated all

sorts of people, not just LGBTIs in a way that we shouldn't have done,

but the point is we are here to call all men everywhere to fall into line

with what God wants. Well, how do we reconcile that? I was born and

raised in Nigeria and Nigeria has 14 years imprisonment a law that

criminalised LGBT people, where the Church of ninia says we need this

law to put these people in place. How do you criminalise people, put

people in prison because of their sexuality and you call yourself a

Christian. Should we split? I think it would help, the split has gone on

from a long time. The last Lambeth Conference the Nigerians weren't

there or the Ugandans weren't there. This division has been going on and

I don't know what the outcome of the meeting will do. There are people

who've made up their minds, the African church has made up their

minds. There'll be a walkout. Well let them walk out. Reverend Rose

Hudson-Wilkin, so over? I hope it is not over. I hope that we can really

begin to see ourselves as a family. Every week throughout the Anglican

Communion we stand there and say, we are the body of cyst. The body of

Christ. We can't say that with integrity and say you, because you

believe X or Y, you've got be out. That's wrong. We don't choose our

family members. We are part of that family. Indeed. If you have some

people from one Church saying that homosexuality is a perversion on

human dignity and other people from another section of the Church saying

it is absolutely a part of the human condition and people should be able

whether they are gay to have fulfilling, not celibate

relationships, but fulfilling relationships. We need to stay

together and we need to listen to each other. Even though like in an

ordinary family we may not agree certain things, but we are still

related. But Ruth... Can I just say one more thing on this? You can. If

we as a. In church cannot sit together at the table and stay at

the table together, the what hope is there for Syria? What hope is there

for the Middle East? If we don't practise it ourselves, the Bishops

are meant to be a focus of unity. If we cannot show that unity by staying

together, even though we disagree... As we've been saying on this

programme for a decade and it is getting worse. I will come to you

Davis, Ruth? The provinces have made a third order issue into a first

order schism attic issue. It is a third world order. Homosexuality?

No, this debate about the split. It is one that has really come about

because of what's happening in the American Episcopal Church. I would

like to quote the Pope. It is not for me to judge on this issue. It is

unbelievable to me that the church which has such a vital mission in

the world and has such a lot of good to do is tearing itself apart over

what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The Church

shouldn't be doing this. Imagine the Church which said, our doors are

open to everybody, we are going to be at the front of this debate. We

are going to marry everybody who wants to get married, as the Church

of England once did in this land. Everybody in this country, whatever

their religion, was entitle bid, is entitled still, whatever their

religion, to marry. Whatever their gender, whoever they want to marry,

of whatever gender. They were, the until the law was passed which now

prevents the Church of England of marrying the same sex. Should that

change? I believe it should. But the Church of England at the moment is

having conversations whether it wants to go down this path. Imagine

if the Church had been foe forefront of this debate and not weighing it

down. Gerry, shoe have been at the forefront of this debate, saying

people of the same gender should be able to marry each other. We are the

bellwetherers, we are the hope for the future. But the argument is if

the law of the land say one thing, should the Church of England roll

over and conform? Who are we serving, God or men? It seems there

are people who would say that what God wants may not be what

contemporary society wants. That's a possibility. How do you know what

God wants? How does the Church know what God wants is this they look in

holy scripture. That's where you find it. It is difficult the

understand. How does the Church derive its authority. Does it change

with the times and adapt and therefore its teachings change in

accordance with what people believe in the day? Or are we much closer to

the scripture. It is not really clear what you are following. You've

put your finger on the Church of England, there are those who feel

the Church of England should adapt and change its views according to

the society it lives in. And there are others who say no, the Church

should stick to what they understand Jesus Christ said and that it is

therefore not negotiable. To actually combine those two view

points. What about Old Testament stuff about stoning women and that

business? I think you need to read your New Testament. The Old

Testament. You need to read your Old Testament in context. You may find

it doesn't mean quite what you think it does. It is very difficult for us

to say let's look at this bit of scripture and that bit of scripture.

There was a time when the Church held strongly that black people were

not intelligent and could not do certain things. To some extent they

do still believe that. The reality is, if we are the body of Christ

together, with very to live as though we are the body of Christ.

There are times when we'll have to adapt. The main thing is we need to

be embracing altogether. Gerry said you need to read the scripture and

put into it context. But so many people are reading the scripture and

putting it into a different context. In Africa there's a wave

putting it into a different context. In Africa there's a -- literalism

and taking it as read. That's what I mean about taking it into a first

order. In today's context as well as the context of the past must be

debated. But those differing views should not be allowed to determine

the future of a Church of England which is not declining, unlike Gerry

said. It is marginally declining. There is much debate... Does the

Church of England lead the Anglican union? No, what should happen is the

Archbishop of Canterbury and other primates form a more federal model

like the Swedish and Lutheran churches are run on. That would

allow a form of leadership. They could remain in Communion with

Canterbury as they are now. Agree to disagree. Yes, with a looser federal

structure. The gentleman there, good morning. The idea that the Church

need not follow the laws of the land is fine if it doesn't want to go its

own way, but if the Church of England wants to that view it should

disestablish and get its Bishops out of the House of Lords. That's the

point, you can't have your cake and eat it. As an outsider, I find it

quite bizarre that the debate exists at all. Both sides, the Conservative

and the progressive, are reading their biles and picking out the bits

they want. The progressives the sermon on the mount, the

conservatives look at the Old Testament and pick out bits and

pieces. What no-one has asked is what is the will of God? Both sides

claim they know the will of God. Both sides are no doubt acting in

good faith. But it seems to me what it actually shows is the sheer

bankruptcy of the Church of England at the moment and Christianity in

general. It is not bankrupt, believe you me! Morally bankrupt, are

intellectually bankrupt, because they don't come to a clear answer.

David, you need to forget the ebbs and flows of social change and the

fickleness and values and look to the fact that tur united under your

God and Jesus Christ your saviour and you should embrace Gerry and

Gerry should embrace you. And we should all have a cup of tea. Gerry

and I have been embracing ourselves for a long time.

LAUGHTER. But the truth is that the worry is that why is it so important

for those who the Church look up to in all that is going on in the

global world to focus on sex, sex, sex, sex? Why is sexuality the most

important problem for the Church? APPLAUSE. And gender. And gender as

well. I think also I am worried, the Bishop of Nigeria will be here as

well as others from Africa. I wish I could look them in the face and ask

them which LGBT members did they invite. They don't want to talk to

LGBT people in their churches, don't want to know them, and they come to

this international forum and speak for us. Gerry said these are vibrant

churches. That is not true. In ninia the Pentecostal Churches a

increasingly losing membership because people are fed up and young

people are going to more churches where it is happy clappy. The

Nigerian church is not growing. There was a lot of debate over the

claimed figures for the Anglican Communion. Some have suggested it is

far from 85 million, but is as few as 45-50 million. In the England it

is how you define an Anglican. The number here is the number of

baptised people. But the number of church goers is around 1 million.

Not declining but still... I would dispute the earlier point that the

Church of England is not moral, has lost its moral basis. I think under

the present leadership of Justin Welby it is incredibly more. It is

making moral arguments on poverty, on war, the terrorism threat facing

the West. The Church has a fantastic leader in that and he needs to be

given a chance to lead on this issue and to help put this issue to bed,

if you like. So that the Church can move on with what's really

important. The Church of England as the established Church has a role to

play in this country. It should be one of uniting people, not dividing

them. Rose, will you be talking to some of these Bishops from Nigia? If

you had the chance. If I had the chance, I would say to them, Jesus

Christ gives us the wonderful image of the wheat and the tiers. The

wheat is sewn and the workers say let's get rid of the tears, and the

masters says let the wheat and the tears grow together until the day of

harvest. What is the urgency with parts of our Church to pull up and

separate? Just leave it be. The day will come when our Lord will do

whatever separation he needs to do. We don't have to. Heaven and hell.

Not necessarily Heaven and hell. I'm just saying that there ought not to

be any urgency on our part to rip up what we have. Let the wheat and the

tears grow together. If it was good enough for our Lord it ought to be

good enough for us. It is a life and death issue in Africa when it comes

to LGBT issues, there are people being killed in Uganda and Nigeria,

so you can't be ignoring these issues. I do not want to ignore it.

Absolutely not. I do not want it ignored. When he said should you

repent and say I'm sorry we were killing our brothers... Absolutely,

I'm in favour of that. I don't want us to be silent on it, but it's not

the only issue. We have been enjoying the benefits of free speech

this morning. Thank you very much indeed.

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

Next week we're in Peckham, South London.

because we're out on a big rock in the middle of the North Sea.

They think this isn't part of real life.