:00:00. > :00:08.growing very slowly. Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.
:00:09. > :00:19.Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi, here on the BBC. Here at
:00:20. > :00:22.Westminster, the House of Lords is debating this week the highly
:00:23. > :00:27.controversial Assisted Dying Bill. The bill proposes that anyone in
:00:28. > :00:30.England and Wales, with a terminal illness, who is judged by two
:00:31. > :00:36.doctors to have less than six months to live, and who is mentally
:00:37. > :00:42.competent, can be given life ending medication, that they must
:00:43. > :00:45.administer themselves. My guest today is the Labour Peer and former
:00:46. > :00:48.attorney general under Tony Blair, Charlie Falconer, who has introduced
:00:49. > :00:56.the bill. How does he defended against critics who believe it is
:00:57. > :01:09.plain wrong and dangerous? `` defend it.
:01:10. > :01:16.Lord Falconer, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. How far do you have any
:01:17. > :01:19.doubts about introducing a bill that has attracted so much formidable
:01:20. > :01:23.opposition? And so much support as well. I am sure it is the right
:01:24. > :01:31.thing to do. And Parliament at last is going to get the opportunity to
:01:32. > :01:34.debate it next Friday. Don't have any even little inklings of doubt?
:01:35. > :01:38.It's something I have thought about over maybe eight or nine years. It
:01:39. > :01:42.has been debated in short bursts in Parliament before, but it has always
:01:43. > :01:45.been derailed in the past. So there has been a real opportunity, not
:01:46. > :01:48.just for me to think about it, but also to discuss it with other
:01:49. > :01:51.people, people who are going through the last stages of their lives.
:01:52. > :01:59.Doctors who have treated them, loved ones who have been with them. And so
:02:00. > :02:03.it is something that I have spent time on, and thought a great deal
:02:04. > :02:06.about. Why have you spent so much time, the best part of a decade on
:02:07. > :02:09.this? It is almost like a personal mission for you. Initially because I
:02:10. > :02:13.myself was involved in various issues in relation to it. But I
:02:14. > :02:20.don't want to talk about the details of those. Someone in your family?
:02:21. > :02:24.Yes. But once I then became involved in it, I had spent time looking into
:02:25. > :02:27.it, I had chaired a commission that looked into the issue. I discussed
:02:28. > :02:31.it with others. So I have worked on the issue over a long period of time
:02:32. > :02:36.because it is something I do feel passionately about. I appreciate you
:02:37. > :02:39.don't want to talk about the personal motivation behind this, but
:02:40. > :02:42.nevertheless there is a personal motivation though, even if you don't
:02:43. > :02:45.wish to talk about it. Do you not accept that there may be different
:02:46. > :02:48.personal motivations for other people? That is why it has been
:02:49. > :02:51.really important, from my point of view, to look at all of the evidence
:02:52. > :02:54.that is available. Because there is evidence from doctors, people who
:02:55. > :02:57.are terminally ill, those who love those that are terminally ill, and
:02:58. > :03:00.it is important to get everyone's view in relation to it, before
:03:01. > :03:03.coming to a conclusion. The British Medical Association, that by and
:03:04. > :03:09.large represents all family doctors in the United Kingdom, is opposed to
:03:10. > :03:12.all forms of assisted dying. Does that not alone give you cause for
:03:13. > :03:18.doubt, that doctors, on the frontline, are saying we are against
:03:19. > :03:20.this? The BMA, that's the British Medical Association, doesn't have
:03:21. > :03:25.specific figures as to how many doctors are against. They, like me,
:03:26. > :03:29.have spoken to lots and lots of doctors. And my experience of
:03:30. > :03:34.doctors is some are very much in favour of assisted dying. Some are
:03:35. > :03:38.very, very much against. But the vast majority just want clarity, in
:03:39. > :03:41.relation to the situation. But you are coming, you are going on one
:03:42. > :03:44.side of medical opinion, that backs your view, and it seems like you're
:03:45. > :03:53.almost ignoring the medical opinion that disagrees with you. I'm not
:03:54. > :03:56.ignoring it. I'm taking into account, but ultimately, Parliament
:03:57. > :04:00.has to make a decision in relation to this, and what Parliament does,
:04:01. > :04:04.it is a political body. With a small p, this is not a party political
:04:05. > :04:07.issue. It's got to balance often conflicting interests. Parliament
:04:08. > :04:15.has now got to address the issue, and make a decision. And I am clear
:04:16. > :04:18.that I think, with stringent safeguards, the right thing to
:04:19. > :04:21.happen is that there should be the option of an assisted death, where
:04:22. > :04:24.you are terminally ill. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has come out recently
:04:25. > :04:28.saying that it does support assisted dying. He is a highly revered figure
:04:29. > :04:40.internationally and in this own native south Africa. `` his own
:04:41. > :04:44.native South Africa. But nevertheless this is what he also
:04:45. > :04:47.said. He said that the money used on treatment of the elderly, should be
:04:48. > :04:50.instead spent on those who are at the beginning, or at the full flow
:04:51. > :04:54.of their life. That is a danger, isn't it? That your bill breaches a
:04:55. > :04:57.principle of the sanctity of life, and it could become a slippery slope
:04:58. > :05:00.whereby you might see care for the elderly withdrawn, just as Desmond
:05:01. > :05:03.Tutu seems to be suggesting there. I am not in favour of care for the
:05:04. > :05:07.elderly being withdrawn or reduced. And indeed, in relation to the field
:05:08. > :05:10.that we are talking about, I would very much like to see palliative
:05:11. > :05:13.care increased. I think it is interesting that in those places
:05:14. > :05:16.where an assisted dying law has been introduced, for example like Oregon,
:05:17. > :05:25.in addition to that assisted dying law, there has also been increased
:05:26. > :05:35.expenditure on palliative care. You mentioned Oracle in
:05:36. > :05:37.having a law like this, and having a debate like this, focuses people 's
:05:38. > :05:40.attention on how society treats people who are dying. You mentioned
:05:41. > :05:43.Oregon in the United States which introduced its assisted suicide bill
:05:44. > :05:46.in the late 1990s. This is what happened in 2010. Two cancer
:05:47. > :05:48.sufferers, Barbara Wagner and Randy Straub, who were relying on social
:05:49. > :05:51.health programmes, Medicaid, for their care, were told the state
:05:52. > :05:55.would not fund any more treatment, but would pay for the drugs to end
:05:56. > :05:58.their lives there and then. It would have cost them $4000 to get the
:05:59. > :06:01.treatment, and $50 to get the life`ending medicine. That is a
:06:02. > :06:07.danger, isn't it? That is a danger. But it is not representative of how
:06:08. > :06:10.the Oregon law works. We have spoken recently to the person who is in
:06:11. > :06:14.charge of hospice movement in Oregon, she says initially they were
:06:15. > :06:17.opposed to it, but as it has worked out in the late '90s, when it was
:06:18. > :06:22.introduced, they are now very strongly in favour of it. But that
:06:23. > :06:25.was 2010. And the medical official involved said it is our duty to set
:06:26. > :06:29.out to citizens in Oregon their legal rights. And assisted suicide
:06:30. > :06:35.is a legal right for them. And that is the kind of danger that people
:06:36. > :06:39.worry about. Two cancer sufferers, being put under that kind of
:06:40. > :06:47.pressure. Yeah, well my law would not people under that pressure.
:06:48. > :06:50.Before you are entitled to an assisted death under my proposed
:06:51. > :06:53.law, two doctors have to be satisfied that you have the capacity
:06:54. > :06:57.to make the decision. That it is your firm decision that that is what
:06:58. > :07:05.you want to do. And that you are aware of what all the palliative
:07:06. > :07:07.care options are. Baroness Hollins, former president of the Royal
:07:08. > :07:11.College of Psychiatrists, said that if we ever had an assisted suicide
:07:12. > :07:14.law it would have to be limited to people who are mentally capable, but
:07:15. > :07:33.as a psychiatrist, I know how difficult assessing mental capacity
:07:34. > :07:36.can be. She asked how robust is this idea of settled intent that you have
:07:37. > :07:43.just raised? That is why you need two doctors. People change their
:07:44. > :07:46.minds though. Will that is why it has to be settled intention. The
:07:47. > :07:49.doctors will see whether this is something you are firmly settled on,
:07:50. > :07:51.or if it is something which might change, if for example your
:07:52. > :07:55.treatment has changed, or of conditions in your care are changed.
:07:56. > :07:58.That is why by law it is very important that the patient before a
:07:59. > :08:02.decision is made knows all the options that are available to him or
:08:03. > :08:05.her. But the factor of the matter is that they may feel under pressure.
:08:06. > :08:07.In a letter to The Times newspaper this week, parliamentarians
:08:08. > :08:10.including the former member David Blunkett cited that Washington State
:08:11. > :08:13.Department's annual health report in 2013 on its debt and dignity act
:08:14. > :08:16.revealed that 61% of those who receive lethal drugs in Washington
:08:17. > :08:18.last year reported feeling a burden on family, friends, and caregivers.
:08:19. > :08:25.So people 's minds aren't really settled at a very difficult time of
:08:26. > :08:29.their lives like that. Those figures involved people ticking a number of
:08:30. > :08:32.boxes. The one overwhelmingly in Washington was that they wanted the
:08:33. > :08:46.freedom, the autonomy to make the choice. And very many people won't
:08:47. > :08:50.take this choice. But the number of people who describe, who don't want
:08:51. > :08:53.to go on fighting for those last few days or months, who are absolutely
:08:54. > :08:57.clear that is what they want to do, it is those people that my bill is
:08:58. > :09:00.aimed to help. Now I need to put in safeguards to make sure that it
:09:01. > :09:04.doesn't put pressure on anybody. But that is the point. The concerns are
:09:05. > :09:11.that your safeguards can never be robust enough. It cannot be better
:09:12. > :09:14.in the current situation, where the only investigation which takes place
:09:15. > :09:17.takes place after a person has died. Let me tell you one big obstacle
:09:18. > :09:28.that is also cited, and why your safeguards are not there. You say
:09:29. > :09:46.you need two doctors to decide just what the situation is of a
:09:47. > :09:48.particular patient. Baroness Finlay, professor of palliative medicine at
:09:49. > :09:52.Cardiff University in Wales, says with a shiver I think of a patient
:09:53. > :09:54.desperate for assisted dying, 22 years ago, his surgeon, his cancer
:09:55. > :09:57.specialist, his family doctor, and I, all thought he would be dead
:09:58. > :10:01.within three months time. He is alive today, and living well. We
:10:02. > :10:04.have to make decisions all the time in society, on the basis of that
:10:05. > :10:07.people are ill and may be dying. If we cannot rely on professional
:10:08. > :10:10.judgements, then no judgement will ever be made about the treatment of
:10:11. > :10:16.people. On the idea... What do you say to him though? Four Medical
:10:17. > :10:23.experts said he had three months to live, and he is still alive 22 years
:10:24. > :10:29.later. Doctors are not all knowing. Of course not. But the question for
:10:30. > :10:32.society is, do we approached the treatment of the terminally ill on
:10:33. > :10:36.the basis that you can never rely on diagnosis? Of course not, we have to
:10:37. > :10:40.do the best we can on the basis of the diagnosis we get. Of course
:10:41. > :10:44.doctors do that every day. But here you are saying that two doctors can
:10:45. > :10:47.decide if a patient is six months away from dying, and my question to
:10:48. > :10:51.you is simply this. How do you know when six months or less is exactly
:10:52. > :10:55.that? It is for doctors to decide. But they can get it wrong. They can.
:10:56. > :11:06.So what happens then? People are dying prematurely.
:11:07. > :11:11.The choice surely is if diagnosis can be wrong, do you say that we
:11:12. > :11:15.cannot trust the doctor at all, or do you say that you are best to rely
:11:16. > :11:18.upon professional judgement? And my view is that you take the view that
:11:19. > :11:23.you will rely on professional judgement. Of course you are right
:11:24. > :11:26.that from time to time, doctors, lawyers, courts, whichever tribunal
:11:27. > :11:29.you use, any group of people used to decide anything, may get it wrong.
:11:30. > :11:33.But the question is, because of the risk of getting it wrong, do you say
:11:34. > :11:37.OK, no change in the law? And I am clear, in my view, that the right
:11:38. > :11:40.thing to do is put in the best safeguards you can, and give people
:11:41. > :11:42.this right. There is also another concern, which has been voiced by
:11:43. > :11:51.prominent disability campaigners in June this year, like the Paralympian
:11:52. > :11:53.champion Tanni Grey`Thompson. And she amongst others says that
:11:54. > :11:56.campaign to legalise assisted suicide reinforces deep`seated
:11:57. > :11:59.beliefs that the lives of the sick and disabled are not worth as much
:12:00. > :12:10.as other people's, that if you are disabled or terminally ill, it is
:12:11. > :12:13.not worth being alive. What do you say to people like her? I disagree
:12:14. > :12:16.with that. Interestingly enough, disabled people reflect society as a
:12:17. > :12:19.whole. Polling over a decade have revealed that the number of people
:12:20. > :12:22.who support a change in the law along the lines that I'm suggesting
:12:23. > :12:31.in the United Kingdom is about between 70 and 80%. In relation to
:12:32. > :12:36.the disabled, the number who support it is about 79%, which is in line
:12:37. > :12:42.with society as a whole. So would you like a referendum, then, if you
:12:43. > :12:44.think there so much support? Because we have a Parliamentary system in
:12:45. > :12:47.the UK, occasionally we have referendums. But are you suggesting
:12:48. > :12:50.that since you think there is such strong public opinion for your
:12:51. > :12:54.proposal, that there should be a referendum for it? No, I am making a
:12:55. > :12:57.different point, which is that some disabled people, like some
:12:58. > :13:01.able`bodied people, oppose my bill. But I don't think there could be any
:13:02. > :13:04.suggestion that the effect of my bill in any way undervalues or
:13:05. > :13:15.devalues the lives of people who are disabled. What it is doing is giving
:13:16. > :13:19.an option to people who are dying. That option will be available to
:13:20. > :13:23.people who are able`bodied as much as the disabled. If you look at
:13:24. > :13:25.examples abroad, we've already discussed Oregon, but also the
:13:26. > :13:28.Netherlands, where there is assisted dying, as well as euthanasia, which
:13:29. > :13:31.I appreciate is different from assisted suicide. That is the
:13:32. > :13:34.intentional taking of life at a patient's request or for a merciful
:13:35. > :13:36.motive. But a prominent pro`euthanasia campaigner said in
:13:37. > :13:42.July in 2014, in the British press, don't go there. Once the genie is
:13:43. > :13:47.out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again. Euthanasia
:13:48. > :13:53.is on the way to becoming a default mode of dying for cancer patients.
:13:54. > :13:57.And what he is referring to there, the genie that got out of the bottle
:13:58. > :14:01.in the Netherlands, is euthanasia, which is one person killing another.
:14:02. > :14:06.That was the law they started with, in the Netherlands, and expanded.
:14:07. > :14:12.But he's saying to Britain, just heed our warnings. Don't go down
:14:13. > :14:15.that path. Well, read clearly what he said. He is talking about a
:14:16. > :14:19.euthanasia law. Compare as well Oregon. It started with an assisted
:14:20. > :14:22.dying bill, and has ended there. There has been no creep in relation
:14:23. > :14:26.to that particular issue. And there is a real difference. Because what I
:14:27. > :14:29.am talking about is not if you have unbearable suffering, whether you
:14:30. > :14:32.are dying or not, you should be able to have somebody take your life.
:14:33. > :14:36.What I'm talking about is how you die. And what the choice is that you
:14:37. > :14:39.have, in the context of a final illness. And that is something very
:14:40. > :14:41.different. But are you... Can I finish? That is something very
:14:42. > :14:48.different from what is being referred to in the comments on the
:14:49. > :14:51.Netherlands law. OK. On Oregon, something like 19 out of 100,000
:14:52. > :14:55.deaths in the state of Oregon are assisted dying. So it is a minority.
:14:56. > :14:58.It's a small number we are talking about here. Is it worth trying to
:14:59. > :15:05.help this minority perhaps... You know, why change the rules for a
:15:06. > :15:10.majority, just for a minority. That's the point. I agree, it is
:15:11. > :15:13.very likely to be taken up only by a small group of people. But those
:15:14. > :15:15.people who are experienced in looking after people who are
:15:16. > :15:19.terminally ill, very many of them, not all of them, but very many of
:15:20. > :15:22.them think this option should be there. And in particular in those
:15:23. > :15:24.places where the option has been there. For example in relation to
:15:25. > :15:33.Oregon. Why not just improve palliative care? I don't think...
:15:34. > :15:37.They are not alternatives. I'm very much in favour of improving
:15:38. > :15:46.palliative care. But I mean, why not... It is not either/or, why not
:15:47. > :15:50.do both? Very quickly, Chris Wood had, suffering from motor neurone
:15:51. > :15:54.disease and has very poor quality of life in some ways, he says that
:15:55. > :15:58.doctors can't have said to him that if he wished to die at some stage in
:15:59. > :16:02.the future, he could just refuse medical attention. What they said to
:16:03. > :16:08.him as he could refuse food and water. He said if they wished to
:16:09. > :16:11.starve himself to death medical assistance would not be given. That
:16:12. > :16:20.is exactly why think there needs to be a change in the law. What doctors
:16:21. > :16:26.are saying to people like Chris Woodhead, starve yourself to death
:16:27. > :16:29.and diet dehydration. But is it not a case now, Lord Falconer, that
:16:30. > :16:32.patients can refuse any and all medical treatment. They can. Why
:16:33. > :16:35.change the law if they can refuse medical treatment, except in
:16:36. > :16:38.alleviation. The cruelty of a death which involved starving himself to
:16:39. > :16:46.death, which may take days, is one of the reasons why I think my option
:16:47. > :16:49.should be available to people. Is there the case of anybody who has
:16:50. > :16:54.allowed somebody to die, because they are terminally ill, actually
:16:55. > :17:02.being put in prison for a? `` for it? Standing by and doing nothing is
:17:03. > :17:06.not a crime. Giving somebody the means by which they kill themselves
:17:07. > :17:09.is a crime, under section two of the suicide act, 1961, in England. And
:17:10. > :17:19.the maximum sentence available for that, obviously not everybody gets
:17:20. > :17:26.it, is 14 years in jail. Can you think of an example of somebody, a
:17:27. > :17:29.family member or friend who has assisted terminally ill person to
:17:30. > :17:33.die, who has faced a criminal punishment like that. Yes, there are
:17:34. > :17:37.people like that. Because the current position is that even though
:17:38. > :17:39.there is that law, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the chief
:17:40. > :17:42.prosecutor in this country, is now saying well, if I think the person
:17:43. > :17:47.is motivated by compassion, then I won't stick it. `` prosecute them.
:17:48. > :17:50.What that means, is that if you are a non` medically trained person,
:17:51. > :17:55.trying to help your loved one to die, that would be OK. But if you
:17:56. > :17:58.are a doctor, it wouldn't be OK. So you've ended up in a situation where
:17:59. > :18:02.we are licensing amateur assistance, or, if you are rich enough, you can
:18:03. > :18:08.take your loved one to somewhere like Switzerland, where assisted
:18:09. > :18:12.dying is OK. So for the rich or for those who want to rely on amateur
:18:13. > :18:17.assistance, the law is OK. That is not a good place for the law to be.
:18:18. > :18:23.It feels to me like a law that is broken. Isn't it the case though,
:18:24. > :18:30.Lord Falconer, that both sides in this debate are right? You have the
:18:31. > :18:33.current Archbishop of Canterbury opposed to this, saying the sword of
:18:34. > :18:36.Damocles will be hanging over the terminally ill. George Carey saying
:18:37. > :18:39.he does back it, because he doesn't want the church to, you know,
:18:40. > :18:44.sanction in anguish and pain. So really, I mean, there is nobody was
:18:45. > :18:48.particularly right. Don't you think? You have to make a judgement. If you
:18:49. > :18:50.introduce a law that is properly safeguarded, does that lead to this
:18:51. > :18:53.position, which, the Archbishop, current Archbishop of Canterbury in
:18:54. > :18:56.the UK describes, of people feeling pressured, or does it lead to a
:18:57. > :18:59.situation, as exists where we have seen operating for 17 years on
:19:00. > :19:07.Oregon, where they don't feel pressured, and it is an option. And
:19:08. > :19:10.for a very large number of people, the fact that the option is there
:19:11. > :19:15.means they feel much more comfortable about living at the last
:19:16. > :19:19.few days, last few months. `` living out. And will probably lead to
:19:20. > :19:23.significant numbers of people living longer. OK, so this assisted dying
:19:24. > :19:27.Bill gets a second reading in the House of Lords this week. And then
:19:28. > :19:30.depending on what happens, it could then be referred to the committee
:19:31. > :19:33.stage. And those peers who are opposed to it, have said they will
:19:34. > :19:37.not vote against it so it can proceed to the committee stage where
:19:38. > :19:41.it can be looked at line by line. And who knows when there will be a
:19:42. > :19:46.free vote on the House of Commons, because there is an election next
:19:47. > :19:50.year. But you are a former attorney general. Lord chancellor here and
:19:51. > :19:54.then Secretary of Justice in the UK. You know how difficult it is to
:19:55. > :19:58.get a law right in this kind of controversy, that we have been
:19:59. > :20:03.discussing. Another difficult area is this issue of child abuse. We
:20:04. > :20:13.have had in the UK, a famous entertainer like Timmy Sable, ``
:20:14. > :20:19.found to have Jimmy Savile. In principle, do you support a law that
:20:20. > :20:25.makes coverup illegal? Well, there are currently laws where it is a
:20:26. > :20:29.conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If you do anything to cover
:20:30. > :20:33.up your own crime, that is bad. I support the change in the law which
:20:34. > :20:38.says that if you know about the deals committing child abuse, then I
:20:39. > :20:42.think in certain specified circumstances you should be obliged
:20:43. > :20:45.to report that two authorities `` somebody else committing child
:20:46. > :20:49.abuse. For example, where you have some role of authority in respect of
:20:50. > :21:01.the person who might be the abuser or the abused. Bustillo of the
:21:02. > :21:04.NSPCC, who is leading a review of historical child sex abuse
:21:05. > :21:10.allegations here in the UK, said the reputation of an organisation should
:21:11. > :21:13.never be put above the safety of a child, whether it is the national
:21:14. > :21:19.health service, where abuse allegedly took place `` Bustillo.
:21:20. > :21:23.Whether it is in Westminster, the political establishment, do you feel
:21:24. > :21:25.it has been the case sometimes that the reputation of organisations has
:21:26. > :21:31.been put above the interests of children? Well I hope not, but I
:21:32. > :21:36.fear that it may well be correct. I think the example about the various
:21:37. > :21:43.church organisations, where child sex abuse has taken place. And there
:21:44. > :21:47.have been determined attempts, now stocked in almost every church's
:21:48. > :21:51.case, to try and cover that up in order to protect the church. And
:21:52. > :21:54.those seem to me to be examples of cases where the institution has been
:21:55. > :22:01.put before the interests of children. And there is a dossier of
:22:02. > :22:04.apparently on historic child sex abuse in Westminster, within the
:22:05. > :22:08.political establishment, which had been gathered by the late
:22:09. > :22:12.Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, and that dossier is apparently
:22:13. > :22:17.missing, although we believe it was admitted to the Home Office, and the
:22:18. > :22:20.Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons Home Affairs Select
:22:21. > :22:24.Committee says more than 500 eventually relevant files are
:22:25. > :22:30.missing on an industrial scale. And that is a huge surprise. Is it a
:22:31. > :22:32.surprise to you as well? It really requires investigation, because of
:22:33. > :22:39.serious allegations of child sex abuse were made, they should have
:22:40. > :22:43.been properly investigated. And we need as far as we can to try and get
:22:44. > :22:46.to the bottom of why they won't properly investigated, if that is
:22:47. > :22:49.the position. In general terms, you could say that again it has brought
:22:50. > :22:53.up this issue of how much trust the public can have in their
:22:54. > :22:56.institutions, be at the political establishment, be at the health
:22:57. > :23:03.service, or whatever. When you said in 2012 that the UK voted, or Tony
:23:04. > :23:08.Blair, under whom you serve, led written into the Iraq War, that
:23:09. > :23:12.perhaps that had kind of lead to a lack of trust amongst politicians
:23:13. > :23:17.and the public `` Britain. Do you see this as feeding into that
:23:18. > :23:25.debate? I do think that what we knew about the Iraq War has said a sense
:23:26. > :23:28.of mistrust against politicians that comes from a wide range of
:23:29. > :23:32.directions. It is absolutely clear that Tony Blair did not mislead the
:23:33. > :23:37.British public. But there are repeated statements that he did, in
:23:38. > :23:40.connection with a very contentious policy decision, namely to
:23:41. > :23:45.participate in the invasion of Iraq Tom has had a real effect on trust
:23:46. > :23:53.in this country, just in the politicians in the UK. Does it make
:23:54. > :23:57.you want to operate more as a lawyer than as a politician? Well, it makes
:23:58. > :24:00.me feel all the more that it is really important that we have
:24:01. > :24:03.transparency and what politicians do. That is why the abuse enquiry
:24:04. > :24:07.being set up is the right thing for the Home Secretary to have done.
:24:08. > :24:37.Lord Falconer, thank you very much. Thank you.
:24:38. > :24:38.Hello. Some disruptive thunderstorms for the start of the weekend, until