Episode 9 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: performing animals, the effects

of motherly love, and the fairness of raising the pension age.

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Michaelston Community College in Cardiff.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

Yesterday the House of Commons should have voted

on a Private Member's Bill banning the use of wild animals,

like lions, tigers, elephants or zebra in travelling circuses.

But the Bill was blocked by a Tory backbencher - again.

Despite overwhelming public support and political consensus,

20 years of campaigning has yet to succeed in stopping wild animals

But it's not just circuses that use animals to entertain people.

Television dramas, films, and commercials all used trained

And top variety shows have been won by performing dogs.

Last week a Government report found that thousands of healthy greyhounds

are killed every year as soon as their racing days are over.

And around three horses die every week from injuries

So, should animals be used in entertainment?

Anthony Beck is with us, good morning. A circus owner and you are

in charge with an evening with lions and tigers. A bit of kissing goes

on, doesn't it? Might colleague and his lion enjoy a kiss at the end of

the show. The audience love that? Yes, they do love seeing our

animals. There are always more people inside the tent then outside

protesting. It is a vocal minority. According to a poll in 2013, only

10% would support wild animals in circuses and 80% are against. It is

a global poll on the DEFRA websites... It is a poll from 2013.

79% against tigers. A lot of people want to get rid of you. Day based

the information on the fact that animals are mistreated. We base our

show on showing people the living conditions, we are not a traditional

circus with clowns and acrobats, it is about educating. So, they kiss

and what else? It is based on natural movements, jumping up,

sitting down. Every action are animals perform is natural. It is

what they learn from their parents, from us, and the environmental

changes. A lot of it, you have to agree, is based on the fact that

people increasingly in the Western world find this an acceptable and

demeaning, of the animals and us. SeaWorld is in big trouble and have

to change their business plan. People find it unacceptable to see

elephants in circuses. This could be your last roar very soon. I hope

not. The reason people see it that way is that the media have dogma

ties... No pun intended! Groups make a large profit out of the dogma. You

make a large profit out of kissing lines. Yes, and it goes back into

looking after the Lions. Animal rights groups make money out of

campaigning. Never mind your little squabbles, let's talk about the

issue. Diana, I know you are a great advocate of animals, you want to

take eating meat out of the global habits, but on this particular

issue, is it acceptable in 2016 to be kissing a tiger? And to have

these majestic animals there for our entertainment in circuses? I think

there is a civilising process where people say violence against animals

is wrong and using them for entertainment is as Ashley wrong

because people feel using them for entertainment is a trivial use of

animals, and while they are different to domesticated animals,

they suffer a great deal in captivity and when they are in

different environments to their natural ones, even when you are

talking about horses and dogs being killed, but is also a terrible use.

Wild animals, even if they were not born in the wild? They should be

kept until they die of natural causes but there should be no

reading of wild animals and taking wild animals from the wild. --

breeding. I do not agree with violence towards animals. Have you

trained them? Weight use positive reinforcement. Praise and rewards.

-- we. Bamboo garden canes with chicken on the end are used to lure

the animals. We never chase of frightened the animals, to pull a

tiger down, we encourage it with the sticks. You can try to dominate

these animals all you want but wild animals will always be wild and they

know they are not where they are meant to be. I have to correct you,

they do not have the consciousness of the wild. We are talking about

living dealing sentience animals who have feelings and the ability to

feel pain. It is 2016, there are a million ways to entertain ourselves

but do not involve... APPLAUSE I was at a lecture on the

world expert on primates who has been looking for into it since 1961.

They can sign up to 400 words, they have an inner life because they are

closely related to us. Would you keep chimps and dress them up? Would

you like to? It would be unacceptable but would you like to?

I think it is perfectly fine as long as their needs are

I think it is perfectly fine as long correctly, that is what it is about.

An understanding of the animal's behaviour. Not as behaviour but...

The veterinary Association has made it clear that a wild animal's needs

cannot be met in a circus environment. On that point, a lot of

people were shocked by the PG tips commercial on TV. Is this

acceptable? No. Am I right in thinking that the act

acceptable? No. Am I right in has been banned from England? No.

Antony but you failed the licensing? has been banned from England? No.

No, we passed five inspections by DEFRA. They wanted indoor space for

our cats but we do not have to add more space because Arcade is twice

the size and what is needed but we would have to convert some

the size and what is needed but we space. We did not want to reduce the

space for animals. So would you prefer to make profits above animal

welfare? No. We have done countless investigations around the world...

Do you make a profit? Emma Renaud, or we do not. We are currently

working with governments in Latin America and we are airlifting

animals to a sanctuary... That you did not give them. Because

legislation has been banned in those countries, the UK is lagging behind

Animal Defenders International putting all their raw sources behind

this and it is not right in this time in age. Good morning, what

would you like to say to us? I would like to talk about the condition you

talk about, and there is another side to that, the negative side. You

can focus on one or two quadrants, we used to be positive reinforcement

behind it. You do but there is no guarantee that anybody else

following that model is. That is why there is a regulation model. I am

invested in this because when I was a child I wanted to be a killer

whale trainer. Look at SeaWorld. Precisely. Ie Moved to California

when I was 11 years old and I was keen for it and you can see the

amount of ocean in that space. You look at the environment and

community and then using them in a restricted tank, and some of the

harm that can come to the animals but also be human that work with the

animals. Moving to the west Coast changed my thinking on this. The

world does seem to be changing and we have been bastions of social

process in this country. What about the example to the rest of the

world? If we carry on doing this, they sure you love your animals and

treat them very well, but in other parts of the world, they do not. In

the far east, it is just sickening. How can we lecture them if we are

still in 2016 weight... We should be encouraging them to regulate the

industry. Look at the horrific footage in nursing homes. Do we

boycott nursing homes because some individuals do not respect the power

they have? No, we regulate it. The same with schools. Some would say

that is a good idea. Is this not about showing off the size of your

machismo? Look at me, I am a master of the universe and I can control

this majestic beast. For some individuals, it might be. For me, it

is the relationship with the animal. I wanted to be a bet and then a

zookeeper and it is the relationship between man and animal, it was so

unique and special, I wanted that. -- vet. Is this not good for

children to see animals reacting like this? Let us think about what

it is to be a circus animal. If you are a lion or tiger or elephant, you

are transported for hours on end and put in temporary accommodation.

There is no possible way, even with the best will in the world, to have

any level of animal welfare that is acceptable, but Animal Defenders

have shown time and time again that actually those animals' lives are

peppered with awful abuses and that is part of the training process.

Everything we have seen has shown that the animals are trained through

fear and intimidation. We have seen hooks, whips, beating, how is that

acceptable for entertainment? It is positive reinforcement... I agree

with you. Like the nursing homes, we cannot target an industry because of

the actions of a few individuals. Some people just find it in this day

and age unacceptable. Hello? Good morning. This is based on the belief

that humans are above animals. APPLAUSE In this day and age, it is

still such a medieval belief that we are better than a beast. What

defines a beast? We are animals. Mammals have self-awareness. We are

unique as humans. Speak for yourself! Mobile phones, the cars,

the space age. We don't need it but we wanted. Animals have a basic need

of survival. They can't form a constituent assembly and vote but

they have qualities of love and the world that we have forgotten about.

Let's talk about Merlin. Merlin is so bored by this debate! Merlin is a

film star, isn't he, Martin? He was in the film called Ha-Ha Hairy. I

got it wrong way round, it is like saying Humphrey Bogart Casablanca!

The industry shows me and I never planned to go into the film industry

with animals, it is something that happened by accident, and I would

like to think that they have chosen me. -- chose. It is because of the

passion I have on the welfare and well-being of the animals we work

with. We supply dogs, cats, all domestic animals, wrapped as well.

-- rats. They are all family pets that live within our home and we use

them in theatre. Rats. They laugh when tickled apparently? They are

affectionate and great pet, and have, like I say, we have them as

family pets but in addition to pets, the use in film industry.

But you wouldn't have wild animals? No, we've been asked many times for

exotic and wild animals but we made a conscious decision not to go down

that road. Do any of your animals, are they dressed up? No. We've come

a long way since the westerns of the 1950s and '60s where a lot of horses

died. Yes. I have to be honest, before getting into the film

industry I used to compete with my dogs. Did they win? Sometimes. But

the treatment of dogs within that is far worse than anything I've ever

seen working on set with animals. And Merlin loves it, yes? Absolutely

loves it. He's relaxed. Elisa, what's wrong with this? I'm glad

that at the end of the day Merlin gets to go home and be a dog. But

that's a far cry to what happens to animals at circumstances. They don't

get that reprieve. They don't get to go back to their homes in the wild.

All they have is a life of misery, boredom and suffering. There is no

domestic animal on the planet that's natural. They are all bred from wild

animals. But selective breeding from wolfs to dogs took thousands of

years. Wild animals are still the same. An elephant will live in a

family unit. They have social needs. Anne the elephant, the cruelty that

was exposed there. Why did they... May I finish my point? Thank you. It

is impossible for you to say that you are allowing those wild animals

to have normal lives when you are con fining and beating them.

Absolutely, an elephant has roaming and ranges of 20 kilometres day. How

can that possibly be emulated within a captive environment?

APPLAUSE. Elephants, horses, all animals in the wild will travel

hundreds of miles sometimes. Not on the back of a truck though. Horses

will travel hundreds of miles. People confine them to 8 foot by 8

foot stables and put rugs on them and give them hay in nets. The thing

about elephants, if anyone want to go elephant crushing, the only way

to do that is to crush its spirit. Joyce, an expert on elephants

differs with you on that. I go with her. Martin? The situation with

circumstances, I've spoken to Anthony and I can see that he's got

this strong passion for what he does. There is no question in my

mind that he loves his animals. But my own personal choice is that I do

feel, or I do conscious I will have a problem with having wild animals

in that kind of situation. I don't mean this in anyway against you and

what you do, but at the same time I do feel that circumstances e I do

feel that circumstances and intos feel thattish

So you see these amazing animals and you think, let December something

about you think, let December something

in the world, because they are such beautiful animals and we see them at

places like Anthonies. We don't learn anything from animals by

watching beaten, depressed animals in a circus. Why not observe them in

their natural environment? You don't have to beat an animal to train one.

I do think we violate their free will, because no elephant or lion

has ever applied for a job at a circus.

LAUGHTER. APPLAUSE. I do see this as a

barbarity along with eating meat. You think it is a continuum? We

should live alongside them, not as slave and Masters. I want to go

that gentleman there. Good morning. If you say it is about loving the

animals, would you still be doing it if there was no profit? Surely if

you loved the animals you should be doing something more valuable with

your time than exploiting them. APPLAUSE. One of the most successful

Asian elephant conservation programmes on the planet is funded

by a circus. But they pulled their elephants out of the circus. Oliver?

I do think you are right that homosap yens are perhaps different

from higher mammals because we have language, sophisticated capacity to

manipulate the environment. That's why we are in control. Why we've

ruined it. Exactly. At the end of the day if you were a lion or an

elephant, would you rather be in a studio or a circus or in the wild?

Definitely. Really? The wild, you've got poaching. Lions have gone

extinct at an alarming rate. They live twice as long in captivity.

They've got fresh food, fresh water... Diana, a quick word. Even

if you never punish animals, keeping them in cages or areas that are not

like their natural environment, that's a form of violence and we

would that about humans. You are making this comparison with nursing

homes. Elderly people, dogs and cats, humans are Dommest dated as

well, they have a natural environment that's dedifferent from

wild animals. Maybe wild lions and tigers don't live as long in the

wild, but it is less violent than keeping them in activity. Thank you

everybody for your contributions. If you have something

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

where you'll find links to join We're also debating live this

morning from Cardiff: the mothering or the

mother that matters? So get tweeting or emailing on those

topics now, or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may have

about the programme. It's Mothering Sunday,

so I hope all you mothers are being waited on hand

and foot and showered Today in churches, children

will thank God for their mother's care, her patience when tested,

her love when tired, her hope when despairing

and her service without limit. Well, enjoy it while it lasts,

because on the other 364 days of the year, the cry

"I blame the mother" Society so often holds mothers

responsible for all the faults and misdemeanours of their children,

even after they've grown up. But now some scientists say

we are just as much, perhaps more, the product

of our genetic inheritance from our parents, irrespective

of how good or bad their care was. So is it the mothering

or the mother that matters? Oliver, you've written this book,

Not in Your Genes, which caused a stir. People have said you are a

science denier, that you are ignoring the scientific evidence.

How much do genes maketh the man or the woman? When it comes to physical

characteristics the Human Genome Project has shown that things like

height or eye colour are influenced by genes. But the extraordinary

fact, and this is a fact, it is not my opinion, there aren't any

scientists who can dispute this, is that the scientists agree there is

something called the missing heartability. By that they mean

they've only been able to find genes which explain about 1 to 5% of

psychological rates, intelligence, mental health, personality. In other

words 95-99% of what we are like appears to be, as the evidence

stands at the moment, not in your genes. That's why I called the book

that name. How interesting. So it is far more of it from environment and

nurture than you would suppose? You have to be wary of leaping to think

that's all nurture. What happens in pregnancy has a big effect. There is

no question that some people are born with a brain abnormality that

causes autism. However, there is no doubt at all, as I set out in my

book, that for example with something as extreme as

schizophrenia, whereas there's virtually no evidence that genes

play any role in that whatsoever. There's a huge amount of evidence

that nurture does. So for example if you suffered child mall treatment

like physical or sexual abuse or emotional abuse, if you suffered

five or more kinds of child mall treatment, when you are grown up you

are 1993 times more likely to be schizophrenic. Bipolar as well. So

does the nurturing change the biochemistry? That's exactly how it

works. In the early years, the crucial period, the first six years.

It is not all about mothers. The way you phrased the question, and it is

not about blame. You will electrochemistry in the first six

years is established, the levels of court doll. -- cortisol. What is

absolutely clear is that nurture is extremely important. That is for

sure. You were nodding vigorously. I believe we are 5% nature and 95%...

We are like a piece of plasticine which is handed to parents to mould

and shape. My nursing career was looking after sick newborn babies,

for 22 years. There are people who will say about individuals, that

person was born evil. I occasionally used to stand in the nursery and

look at six or eight babies and say, according to these people, there's a

chance this one of you is evil. And if it is that random it could be my

children, it could be my grandchildren. We are a blank slate.

Absolutely. What's your name? Angela. Sorry I came to you all of a

sudden. I want to come to Diana. You were nodding vigorously but Diana is

the opposite. It's face palming. I read most of your book yesterday and

I would say that you are taking the human genome project and saying

there hasn't been a one to one correspondence with genes with no

characteristics and saying there is no heartability. There is

genome-wide complex analysis. They find that people who've correlations

with genes have correlations with psychology. If it was true it was

mostly nurture you wouldn't be able to breed dogs or other animals to

have certain temperaments. And you are saying that physical

characteristics are genetic and psychological ones are not and that

seems to be a dualism. It is not about dualism. If you think about

your project, when you are born as baby, is to attract the resources of

your parents. We have the longest period of dependents of any species

on our parents. If you are going to survive you have to find a niche

that attracts your parents. If you were born very plastic, I wouldn't

say a clean slate, as a third of babies are born difficult because of

the pregnancy. If you are born plastic and flexible you have a much

greater chance. In my case for example I was one of four and I had

three sisters. Sisters. Purely because of what was between my legs

when I was born, my father treated me differently to my sisters. Diana,

as a respect admired evolutionary psychologist with PhDs and

everything, if you had been born in challenging circumstances in a slum

in Mumbai and you hadn't had a supportive family, would have

everything against you in early life, hour would you have turned

out? There's a dig difference between saying that hinges are her

itable and saying that being effected or abused doesn't matter.

Being effected or abused does matter. If I take my smartphone and

drop it six storeys it breaks. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for how

it works or anything about it. Neglect and abuse does have a bad

influence in terms of keeping people from being able to make their

genetic potential. I do think that personality, intelligence and other

characteristics, including personality, intelligence and other

determined. As an evolutionary psychologist, the way

determined. As an evolutionary supposed to work, you have

particular patterns of DNA, supposed to work, you have

genes, which are coded for particular amino acids, coded for

particular proteins which resulted in schizophrenia, being clever or

normal, whatever. That isn't what the science has shown. Do we agree

about that? Do we agree about that? No. There's a massive missing her

itability. In 2009 in nature all the scientists published a paper saying

there's a massive missing her itability. Are you saying they are

wrong? You are being confusing on purpose. What the twin studies found

and what the gene studies found. Is there a big gap?

Just because we don't know the gene, doesn't mean it isn't heritable. If

the mother has a year of extra education and adopt a child, for

every year of extra education she has, her child only games five weeks

of extra education. Twin studies are trumped by... Let me say this... You

also have taken that out of context trumped by... Let me say this... You

massively. Eileen, sorry? Missing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

massively. Eileen, sorry? Missing also means it has been found yet.

The balanced view is that there is inheritable data on both sides of

the equation. -- empirical data. Nature and nurture. If you sit back

and say to any mum of a fully formed adult child, did you make that

child? Did you and your husband single-handedly with every word you

said, form that child? I don't think many parents would say, yes! Yes, we

did it. I think increasingly people look at their children and say,

where did you come from? Who is that?! I am adopted, you have

adopted children. I have three adopted children. Is it nurture or

nature? I think every child adopted children. Is it nurture or

the family with their own set of temperaments, their own

characteristics, their own potential, but that is not to say

that you can influence because you can provide opportunities and you

can encourage, but all the way can provide opportunities and you

through it is a debate and compromise between what I would like

and what the child would like given their own genetic history.

Interesting. Sarah from Mothers at Home Matter. We were saying earlier

on if you don't mind me quoting you on the battlefield, you said that

nurture is everything. I think that you have to do start off with good

foundations to realise your potential. If you lack nurture or

emerge from your childhood is insecure with problems, mental

worries and things like that, you are not able to function as fully as

you would have had you been properly nurtured. The fundamental thing,

whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate, is that you have two

provide security for your children and give them confidence so they can

function fully, and that is to do with nurture. Now we see that people

are very different parents. This nurture idea makes parents less

likely to have children because they think it is a lots of work and it

makes people more anxious about how their kids turn out. You may say it

is not a brain gain but in the 50s, children were the product of

refrigerated mothers. Why are you saying it, you are trying to smear

what I am saying? No, but I do not think people will have any other

intimidation. What I'm saying is fantastically positive and there is

scientific evidence saying that if people do not leave their children's

abilities are fixed, they are likely to change for the better. Just by

giving children lessons in the idea yes, OK... If they believe their

mental illness is fixed, it is less likely genetics... I am fortunate

because I have twins as grandchildren and from the very day

they were born as babies, they were born with individual personalities.

Identical twins? No. One boy and one girl. As they grew up, you could

tell from the first days, they had their own personality, and they have

grown up, and amazingly, the girl is very much animal orientated, she has

a rapport with animals, her own personality, and the Rory is very

much not so keen on animals and has a different personality. -- Boyet.

They are free now and they had the same nurture. Is that nurture? One

boy and one goal are going to be massively different because they

only share some of the genes. -- girl. Identical twins reared very

similar to twins reared together which is not what you would expect

from nurture. Back to Merlin, I do not understand why Oliver is saying

that in animals genes can make up our whole lot of personality. But

not in humans. Before you answer that, I want to ask you about the

so-called gauging. A lady had a hand up. Good morning. My main concern is

about pain dangerous it is if we focus on genes. -- how dangerous. I

work with a little boy with speech and language delays, and obviously

those are his jeans and he cannot help that but what his parents are

doing and what I am doing is providing a nurturing environment

for him. Genes maybe someone's hurdles but they are not

insurmountable. The focus should be on nurturing a good environment by

parents and by society and the government. We talk about the

inherent dangers in this, Oliver, but what about the gauging? Gay

friends say they were absolutely gay from the moment they were conscious

of themselves and had subconsciousness and self-awareness.

If it is purely environment, is that not Manna from Heaven? If it is all

environment, in Banjul is that, that knocks the ball into their court. --

evangelistic. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence so far that it

is genes. I'm not saying what it is. What you think? There is a theory

and evidence that if you have older brothers and you are younger, you

are more likely to be gay. There is evidence for that, and the

possibility that it is transmitted with testosterone in the womb. There

are other physical mechanisms by which transformation can take place.

The key point and I can never understand why we are discussing

homosexuality at all, why we have this fascination with white some

people like to do certain things with each other. No one discusses

why heterosexuals like to have certain positions in sex and that is

next week! 10am on a Sunday morning! We can learn a lot from this. If one

is gay, the other brother is only likely to be 50% gay. I horrified my

ex-boyfriend's father by saying this at because he has ten older brothers

but in terms of epigenetic inference, that is influence at

birth, if two boys share the same amniotic sac in the womb, and they

are both more likely to be gay and that might mean there is some sort

of environment influence on homosexuality, and I think

homosexuality is interesting, I disagree with Oliver on that point.

It is interesting why some people engage in non-reproductive behaviour

exclusively. Which we see across the animal kingdom. It is a matter of

bonding. We know that. I think it is self-evidently nature and nurture

but too much focus is put on the nature sides at expense of what

happens in the early years when a child is brought up. That and

justify some of the inequalities as if some wings are natural. Have that

experience? I spent a lot of my childhood with my grandmother and I

left school at 17 with not many qualifications, I ended up going

back to college at 21 and that cost money because I was over 19 and I

could only do that because my grandmother had the money to help me

through college. That was nurture and if I had been from a poor

family, there is no way I could have done that. Also, if you look at the

top of society and the professions in our country, there was a report a

few weeks ago which showed that in some of the jobs, 50 or 60% of these

people went to private school. Those people are not in those jobs because

they are necessarily naturally gifted, they are in positions there

because they were born into families with a great deal of wealth. I

think, yes, nature plays a role but I think we shouldn't at all

underestimate the impact that money can have. Would Boris and Dave B at

the top... That is the question. I did a programme which reunites

people and a lot of people said they wanted to meet their birth relatives

because they said they wanted to meet a birth relative who is like

me. Can you understand that? That is very natural. We want to know where

we have come from. We want to know what our siblings are like. Can I

say something else? We are talking so much about the science of this

and today is Mothering Sunday. Mothers do a fantastic job and this

lady is talking about how they are helping the little boy with speech

and language difficulties. Whatever the characteristics they are born

with, whatever the problems are, the mother is in a position to help the

child bring them through difficulties and launch them in

their lives, and mothers need support and help and appreciation,

and we don't do that enough in society where we are always trying

to get them out of the workplace and telling them that their time at home

is not valuable. We need to value mothers because they are the crucial

thing in the lives of those children and it is our future generation, the

people who will look after us and we are old, they are the ones who will

grow up and be doctors or teachers. We do not value bringing them up

enough. APPLAUSE. We don't value is mothers

enough. -- value the mothers. You have slam dunked it, Sarah. Thank

you very much indeed, that was the last word.

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

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

Or you can tweet using the hashtag bbctbq.

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

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

We're in Glasgow next week, Brighton on 20th March,

and then after a break for Easter we're in York on 3rd April.

This week the Government dropped a bombshell on the retirement plans

There is to be a review of the state pension age from 2028.

And bets are on that it will rise to at least 70.

If you were born after 1961 you will already have seen the age

if you are a man, and from 60 to 67 if you are a woman.

The problem facing all future governments is that there will be

too many older people and not enough younger workers paying taxes

and national insurance to support them.

Beth, president of the NUS in Wales, it is going to come

Beth, president of the NUS in Wales, it? It is good that young people

focus on this, vital. I remember thinking a long time ago that it is

never going to come or happen, why should I bother? You are going to

live longer, your generation. More of your generation spent longer in

education, diseases that we are now suffering from will be curable and

treatable, we can't afford not to change. I think often there is a

debate focusing on life expectancy and we talk about it increasing and

people having to work longer. A healthy life expectancy is not

necessarily increasing and healthy life expectancy is not

generation is the first to be worse stop than my parents. We're not

seeing the social mobility that previous generations did. -- worse

off. We have increasing debt from university, much higher than our

older generation which means we will not be able to save for this

pension. More people are going to university than ever before and are

more educated than before and healthier than before. But that does

not mean we will be having high levels of debt in future life. We

should be saving 50% of our income to have a comfortable pension to

live. My generation are coming out with massive levels of debt meaning

we cannot save as much as we need to be to have a comfortable retirement.

The problem is that my generation are not aware of the requirements of

pensions, we're not coming out of education with the finances. In my

mind, it is we are going to work longer, the government should be

investing in adequate financial education select everybody that

leads school understands what taxes and pensions are.

APPLAUSE It is everywhere. You are students, education is there. We can

look it up. Your map and you need to be spoon-fed? We can look it up on

the Internet that the state should take responsibility for future

generations. If they expect us to live longer, they should invest

money into educating young people and supporting them to get through

life. David? The International longevity Centre? Oh, I beg your

pardon. Perfect. I agree with what Beth said that the key point is that

this longer life expectancy is so dramatic, it is revolution in

longevity. Every ten years, life expectancy increases by 2.5 years.

At the moment, there are 15,000 people over 100. When I get to 100,

if I do, in 2059, there will be 380,000 people over that age. The

number of centenarians will increase by 25 fold. This is one

illustration. The point that that is making is that it is not just about

education, it is about what we are doing to our younger people. We are

making them into a generation and forcing them to page wishing fees,

to pay high housing costs, giving them insecure jobs.

Why is raising the pension age fair? It is very much fair, because the

younger generation are spending less to support the older generation,

because the older generation will work for longer. The problem is

we've taken too long to raise it. It is too low already and we are doing

it rather late in the day. We've got a whole generation of essentially

baby-boomers who've retired too early. What about the generation

that set up the welfare state - beverage, Attlee. They would be

turning in their grave. This would be at the core of the welfare state.

No, they set up a safety net to cover the last few years of your

life, not half your life. The idea was as civilisation developed and

automation happened, we would be working less. British full-time

workers work some of the longest hours in Western Europe. When we

talk about average life expectancy we are talking about two different

poles. In London the wealthiest people live up to 25 years longer

than the people living in the poorest parts of London. In Glasgow

for example life expectancy is still in the 50s. We say life expectancy

is around 80 years old, but the average healthy life expectancy is

still 63. You are less likely to be healthy in work if you have one of

the much harder jobs. It is easy for middle class people to say I think

we should work until we are 80, 85 or 90, but if you are in a manual

job where you are going to have less life expectancy anyway, I don't

think we should be telling some of the poorest people in society, in

one of the wealthiest countries in the world, they should work until

they drop. APPLAUSE. I think what's missing

from this discussion is we are ignoring the fact that jobs are a

finite resource. If I'm working until I'm 70 and everybody else is,

the National Union of Students won't be there, because we are filling

that gap. APPLAUSE. Dave, from the

International Longevity Centre. Research conducted by the centre

found that those areas where there are more older people employed,

there are more younger people employed. If everyone leaves the

workforce at state pension age, 12.5 million people leaving the workforce

but only 7 million young people entering it, we'll have a major

workforce deficit and companies won't be able to get the people they

need to move their businesses forward. This assumes that there'll

be Joshes for everybody, but if you are asking generations to work

longer there had to be an understanding what what's suitable

work. Work. Manual labour, firefighters, nurses, there'll come

a time where they can't work. Upskilling and retaining, so people

who've reached the age where they can't continue could re-enter... If

you are an adult that wants to return to education, the Welsh

Government have decimated adult community learning. If you want to

reskill and retrain you couldn't. I agree, but what we are talking about

is social justice, fairness. There are two ways of looking at fairness,

one is rich and poor, but the other dimension of social justice is

between old and young. It seems to me that we've got it wrong. In terms

of social justice between generations, and my generation as a

baby-boomer has taken too much and the younger generations have been

given too little. One part of that is we've retired too early and we've

promised ourselves pensions which are unaffordable. That's true

whether to its public sector employees or the private sector. I

want to comment about the cost issue. If you don't increase the

state pension age you have to maybe have more money going into the state

pension to fintd or maybe not have a pension for everyone. Maybe it is

only for these who need it. We'll get the microphone to you. Both of

my parents retired early, and at my age, seeing it on the news all the

time about our ageing population, I think you can educate yourself.

There's so much out there to say, it annoys me. I want to retire knowing

that the pension age might be raiseded in my lifetime. I might

have to get rich. I think the concept of retirement is flawed.

Really? Yes. I think people should work throughout their whole lives,

but the younger generation are going to bear the biggest brunt, because

firms and businesses are reluctant to hire new workers. I think the

keep the older generation economically active everyone should

work reduced hours. What about that, work for your entire lives? I don't

know why we've lost the idea there should be a point in your life where

you are Lincolnshire rated from work, where you've put in your

shift, you've paid into the welfare state, your whole life shouldn't be

based around a job which in many cases you don't even like in the

first place. There's a lack of respect for older people in our

society? I do think we are a very rich society. The problem is that

automation and the machine economy instead of benefitting workers, I

think it's increased profits for what we call the 1%. So the richest

people in our society have done very well out of that but that's not been

reflected in leisure time for workers. Good point. I feel like a

lot of people... How old are you? 22. Do you think about retirement,

about your pension? It is a difficult thing to get your head

around, but it does creep across my mind. I was thinking that a lot of

older people use the years after they retire when they are still

mobile and everything to volunteer and contribute to society in other

ways. Will we not lose out massively in that if we are making people work

up until they can't even move any more? That's a good point.

APPLAUSE. My mum, she's 93 and I rang her and said, what have you

been doing? She said, I've been helping out with the old people.

LAUGHTER. After Thatcherism, the insane obsession with housing, so

she sold off the housing stock and liberalised mortgages and people

think they own their house but it is owned by the mortgage company. We've

also spread our legs in London to foreign and foreign capital

Ors comes in and the London housing market is massively up. The other

problem is a simple one, after Thatcherism, Blatcherism and he was

just as bad as Thatcher, if not worse, sold off tul the playing

fields. The average chief executive in this country earns 123 times the

amount of his average worker. His pension, he doesn't have a problem

with his pension. He can retire at 55 on massive pension. So let's

introduce into this discussion the structural reasons why somebody, the

NUS representative there, it is easy to get bogged down into the minutiae

of it. Let's be clear this is dead political. We need a radical change

in society. We need to become much more like the Scandinavian

societies, they don't more like the Scandinavian

like these problems, even though they have a welfare state, and the

expense and so on. One of the things they have a welfare state, and the

they do is make the state pension means tested the, or an element of

it. The problem at the moment is we are giving out welfare to wealthy

older people who don't need it. We are giving them lthy older people

who don't need it. We are giving them all sorts of things - winter

fuel allowance, free bus passes, free prescriptions. It doesn't seem

fair for younger people to be struggling and suffering while older

people are getting this largesse. The other option is to stop us

living so long. Stop all these health campaigns about the obesity

crisis and say, no, carry on smoking. Have a drink! That's the

way to do at this time, put that in your manifesto. I don't really want

to go there. Another flip side of this argument is it is an argument

for emigration. You have often the people who are most hostile to

immigration from Europe tend to be older people and it is younger

immigrants who contribute the most. One of the most to our economy, so

they tend to pay in a lot more than they take out. In many instances

young Eastern Europeans coming to Britain to work are paying for the

indigenous British people's pensions in future. That's another thing we

should talk about. There are other views on Brexit, can I just say at

this point? And we'll be addressing some of those with impeccable and

unimpeachable balance in the next few weeks, you naughty man! The lady

at the back, your second appearance. Hello. I was picking up on the

point, do we continue to work for the rest of our lives. My dad

dragged himself to pension age. My mum's here. Happy Mothering Sunday.

What's your name? Anne. Happy Mothering Sunday to Anne everybody.

APPLAUSE. My dad dragged himself to retirement age through illness and

absolutely everything you could have thrown at him. Two years after

retiring, having put into this pension, he then died. We have to be

really careful about extending this age for men and for women. We have

health issues to think about first and foremost.

APPLAUSE. Absolutely. It is only fair to raise the state pension age

to enable people to be able to work up to that point. What measure

insist To address health issues and some of the massive regional health

inequalities in our country we can promote greater health literacy, and

a bigger issue about raising the state pension age, the people aged

50 and 64 who are out of work but would like to work. More than 1

million people have been forced out of work through ill health,

redundancy and early retirement. We want to follow good practise by

agencies who are adapting working patterns and roles and adapting

their workplaces to allow people to be able to work longer. Barclays is

actively looking to recruit older people, as they believe they are

more reliable, more efficient and bring expertise. Shouldn't we

address the inequality question first. Why should somebody in a poor

town in Scotland and dies in their 50s work their whole life to pay for

the pension of someone who is very wealthal wealthy?

APPLAUSE. We should tackle the inequalities or it is profoundly

unfair. Would you buy the argument that in the future 07 07 70 will be

the new 50? The differences are so vast. The life expectancy in areas

of highest deprivation is so different. 25 years in London for

example. What you are doing is suggesting that maybe people should

save for themselves rather than be in a collective scheme. Once you

move towards this individual pension saving, which is what we've done

with autoenrolment and the nest saving, when you move towards

individual saving rather than collective one you immediately have

this danger that you outlive your saving. Collective schemes don't

work well if you say we are going to make sure they work for the older

generation only. We've run out of time, but how old will Merlin be

when he retires? He'll finish if I feel that he isn't happy. As long as

he's happy working... He looks very happy now, don't you Merlin? He's

having a great time. Did you enjoy the debates?

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

Next week we're in Glasgow, so join us then.

But for now it's goodbye, and make sure your Mum has a great

Thank you so much for watching The Big Questions.

APPLAUSE. You and I, we're going to change

this country. You run and, hopefully,

win elected office.