in Parliament in the Record Review. With MPs expenses and Tony Blair

back in the spotlight, welcome to And with me here tonight in

Coventry, Lord Falconer, one of Tony Blair's closest political

allies, Justice Secretary in his Cabinet. A defector from that

Cabinet, the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Theresa May, the

Respect MP, George Galloway and The Daily Mail comenist, Melanie

Phillips -- columnist, Melanie Phillips.

So good evening. Let's go straight

to our first question. The panel don't know what the questions will

be. The questionists do. Do you think the 1.3 approximately

pounds to be -- £1.3 million to be repaid will restore the public's

confidence. George Galloway, will this restore

public confidence? A general election is the only way to restore

confidence in MPs. I hope a large number of them are swept out of

office and I suspect a number of them them will be. A number have

beat the retreat and decided to cheat the public of their right to

hold them to account by retiring prematurely. I think that we have

major sis systematic problem. A problem that has been gathering

pace for a long time. People don't trust the authorities. They don't

trust the information and statistics they get from

authorities and they don't like the judgement exercised by MPs either.

My view is that we've got too many MPs, probably twice as many as we

need. India has a00 MPs for -- 500 MPs for one billion. We should have

the number of MPs, -- we should halve the number of MPs, and give

them more staff and the quality of the work would improve.

You are going all over the shop. So you are repaying over £3,000, that

won't increase public confidence in you, you don't think? Well, the

decision to ask me to repay it was a little perverse as it wasn't me

who claimed it on that budget in the first place. My telephone bill,

it was a telephone bill from 2004 was charged to the additional costs

allowance budget by the finance officer of the House of Commons,

not by me. But when Mr Legg asked for the £3,000 back I wrote the

cheque. You can imagine the Daily Telegraph's disappointment in the

many weeks that they filleted this issue that they discovered my

expense claims in this Parliament have been zero. Duck's egg, nothing.

Duck's egg, not duck house!

Charlie Falconer. I don't think it will increase

confidence. I think it will make the position worse because people

will do the calculations. There are 390 MPs who are paying money back

and it's about £3,000 a head. I think confidence has been very,

very severely shaken in a very big way in Parliament and in MPs and I

think once you lose confidence to the extent that the

Parliamentarians and I include myself in this have lost confidence,

it takes a hell of a long time to get it back. People, I think, are

incredibly angry with members of Parliament and I don't even think

necessarily that the general election is going to have the

effect of clearing it. I think we should try to keep it in context. I

think we have an essentially uncorrupt Parliament. I think we

have got to be very, very careful in the way that we respond to this,

to prevent a situation being reached where only rich people can

become MPs. I think that that would be wrong. I think our politicians,

whatever you may think, have served us pretty well over the years. I

think we've had a good standard of Government and I think we won't

continue to have that if we continue to treat all politicians

as bad simply because a small number of MPs abused the expenses

system.

You, sir. Why would you need a second home of

£200,000, explain that to us. Clare Short.

I didn't understand. £200,000 for a second home.

£200,000. Just off the top of my head.

I don't think people are allowed to have a second home for £200,000. I

don't understand that question, but people who, Scottish MPs as George

used to be, and then they are going to be in London, need to have two

places. I have a place in Birmingham and I have a place in

Clapham. You need two places. It used to be that you couldn't claim

anything to a mortgage, but you could claim rent. When I went into

the House of Commons, the ceiling was lower and you could claim rent

because you had to stay in London as well as stay in your home.

Is today's news going to restore public confidence? No, I personally

think, it was a baggy expenses system. The Government didn't

introduce reforms on MPs pay. That should be made totally independent.

They let the expenses system get baggy and people were encouraged to

claim a lot and some people absolutely cheated and it looks as

though there will be some prosecutions, but others, because

if you work out the figure £1.1 million, 390 MPs, it is under

£3,000 on average and it is over four or five years so most of them

is not massive amounts but some people are massive amounts. It

needs tightening up. We need a system like the Scottish system

where everything is transparent and on the web every month, but the way

they have got at it and at it and over and over and all MPs have been

smeared, not just the ones who were really at it and claiming

disgracefully. It comes on top of other feelings. There is the

expenses on top of the Iraq war and the feeling it has gone gone gone

rotten and there is no difference between the parties.

Do you feel aggrieved at having to pay the money back? I have got

£1200 for my mobile phone bill and they said I should have claimed it

from something else. For five years they said that was fine. I don't

mind giving back £1200. It is a funny thing, they said that's OK

and then come along and said, "No, you should have claimed it from

something else." And the gardening and the cleaning.

People like Frank Field is a descent, hard-working MP. He is not

married. He has a housekeeper who looks after his house. He is over

the new limit they have brought in since and he feels really angry

that now it is suggested that he is behaving improperly when he would

never cheat on anything. The lady in the third row.

I would say the British public actually feel angry. I don't know

about the politicians feeling a little bit angry. I think the

British public haven't just lost confidence in the people that they

vote for, they are disgusted and have lost respect for the

politician that they vote for.

Theresa May, do you think she is right? What the lady said is right.

People were angry when they learned of what happened. I think they will

be angry today when they have seen the sums of money that have been

repaid and people were rightly angry and all members of Parliament

must take responsibility for letting the system get to the point

where those sorts of claims were being made and not just the system

itself, but the culture around the system was allowing those sorts of

claims to be made. I don't think the repayments going back to the

original question, will restore confidence in politicians. I hope

it is the first step in restoring confidence to Parliament. I think

there are some other things we need to do. We do need to cut the size

of Parliament. We should have, if we were in Government, ministers

would have a cut in their pay. We need full transparency on expenses,

but what is going to restore confidence for people in politics

and politicians is the behaviour of politicians.

Do you agree with what Sir Christopher Kelly said to the House

of Commons committee today, "I think all of you are are guilty

having gone along with a system which you knew was flawed." We must

all take responsibility because we did go along with that system. We

allowed the system to carry on as it was. I think many people didn't

know what was happening within the system, but we allowed a culture to

grow up where people were able to make those claims and that was

wrong and it has to change. The woman in purple there.

Given that it was a flawed system, what confidence can you give back

to us, the British public, that that it will be improved because it

was an element of dishonesty and how can we be assured that it will

be changed? Melanie Phillips. have sympathy with this lady who

asked this question. Even though it is £1.3 million being paid. From my

point of view, I can't understand why this flipping business hasn't

been addressed. We're being told that flipping houses is legal. Well,

if it's legal, it is not descent. It's not wrong. If you have two

houses which I understand, you have to have two houses, you have a

constituency a long way away from Westminster, that's fine, but

nevertheless, you are living in your main house, you know it's your

main house. It is where your spouse and where your children go to

school from and to pretend that's your second house in order to

fiddle the system for tax avoidance for mortgage fiddles or whatever,

it maybe legal, but it is it is disgusting and the fact is…

All those MPs seem to be quote

getting away with it. So how come, we have heard across the floor as

it were this evening, contrition is the new spin, but when you look at

it, what possible reason have we for believing any of them?

Very brief, very brief, George.

I'm not contrite in the least and I'm not guilty because I didn't

know people could claim for hanging baskets and ropes for their flag

flag poles and their duck ponds. I never bought a house. Never claimed

from a John Lewis list that I didn't know existed and I didn't

know others were doing so. So I'm not at all contrite and my phone

bill was approved by the finance officer, not me.

We have a lot of questions to get through.

If you're into Twitter and you want to follow us, we're at BBC Question

Education Minister us with comments:

Is Short right that the Cabinet was misled over the war in Iraq.

This is Clare Short's evidence to the Sir John Chilcott inquiry, over

the war in Iraq, is she right, Lord Falconer? No, I don't think she is

right at the time. I was not in the Cabinet at the time, Clare was.

So, how did you know? Clare and Rob yin opposed the war at the time.

Rob in, like Clare took the time to be intelligent about the war.

Through discussions with the Prime Minister, with the intelligence

services he took a view against the war. There was no question, I don't

think of anybody being misled in the Cabinet. Choices had to be made.

That was as to whether or not you supported the war or not. Robin

didn't, the truth is that Clare did not either. Robin made a speech in

the House of Commons on the 18th of March in which he set out in detail

his position, which included weapons of mass destruction and

legality. For everybody in the Cabinet it was a difficult decision,

but I don't think it is right to say that they were misled, people

simply took different views. So, we will come to Clare Short in

a moment, but when she said that legal advice was lent on and that

Tony Blair's view was of him and his mates around him, ones that he

could trust, you are one of his mates, one of his close estimates,

you are the man that is said to have pinned Lord Goldsmith to the

dining room drawer? Can you make it clear.

This is not true. I did not pin him against the wall. As he said in the

course of a day in evidence… you try to get him to change his

mind? I didn't. Why have a meeting with him at all?

By the time I saw him on the evening of the 13 pth of March, he

had formed his view. Why did you want to meet him?

wanted to meet us, in subs consequence to handling. He asked

for the meeting. Me and Sally Morgan. He wanted to meet both of

us. This is part of the myth that grows up. Peter Goldsmith formed

his view in relation to the legal advice it was open to Clare, she

questioned the legal advice, she knew well there were different

views in relation to the legal advice, she, honour yaipbl, had to

make up her own view in relationship to it, but it's not

right, I have to say, I made up my view on the basis of the fact there

were certain things I did not know. Clare Short Everybody knows now we

have had all the leaks that Blair promises Bush he would with be him

on regime change, but there had to be a series of con volume usings.

We all know now that there was an exaggeration of how much weapons of

mass destruction there was, how dangerous it was, whether it was

weaponised. That has been proved on the Butler Report. There was an

unequivocal authority for war. It was stunning. We now know, before

he has been before Sir John Chilcott, that he changed his mind

three times in two weeks, he made Tony Blair sign a document saying

that there was no other way of getting disarmament, even though

Hans Blix was saying he needed more time, he is getting progress, he

has gotten rid of blastic missiles. So we know that the senior legal

advisor, the one below that was saying it was illegal, I agree that

everybody has to take responsibility for their decision,

but there is no question that there was dishonesty and twisting, for

example, that the French had vetoed a second resolution, and Jacques

Chirac had said that he would oppose a second resolution, we know

that is true. That we should agree to enfarce on Saddam Hussein and

disarm, there were a whole series of dishonesty. Charlie is Tony's

best friend, he has to deny it. No, I don't accept what Clare is

saying. I am not saying this as I was Tony's best friend. I am saying

this at the time, the decisions, what the arguments were, pro and

antey were well-known to everybody. Look at the debate of 18th of March,

2003. Roman Catholic and others set out all of the detailed arguments -

- Robin Cook. People had to make up their minds

it was not about dishonesty. It was about what decision you took.

Different people in different parts of country took different views. It

is wrong now for though in fairs of the war at the time, toy try to say

they would have had a different view had they been told different

things at the time. That is not right, all of the material was

available. Are you saying that Clare is lying?

Not for one moment. I don't think Clare is lying, I have to say that

Clare has been one of the most successful members of the Blair and

Brown Cabinet as the international development was great success.

What has that to do with it? I want to you to know that I admire Clare,

but I don't accept her view he was misled. She made a decision. I am

not talking about me, I am talking about this country, the political

system, what happened in Iraq, the people's whose lives were lost, the

mess in the Middle East, whether it could have been done better,

whether the country was told the truth, this is not about me, this

is a very big thing. It is a very, very big

thing. The reason that I personalallise it is because Clare

is saying she was misled. Already, there are a lot of people

with their hands up. Let's go around the table here. Melanie

Phillips? I don't know if the Cabinet was misled. I was not there,

but I don't think that we the people were misled. I realise that

this may not be a majority view. I am a small band of people,

apparently, who supported the war in Iraq at the beginning. I support

it now. I think that everything that happened after the fall of

Saddam Hussein was catastrophic, but that is another matter. I don't

believe that we were taken to war on a lie. I believe that everyone

at the time believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons stocks, it was

irrationalal at the time given what we knew not to think he had weapons

stocks, I rashal not simply because of the intelligence, which we all

know was limited but because of the way he behaved for so long, seeking

to conceal what he was doing. In any event the cause for war was not

the WMD stocks, but that he had failed to show as the UN required

him to show that he had disarmed, not just got rid of all his weapons

stocks but stopped his weapons of mass destruction programmes so that

he would prove to the world he was no longer a threat. That was the

case for war. I believe it was legal. I have read everything that

has been said at Sir John Chilcott, the opinion of the Foreign Office

legal advisors, I think that they were wrong, I say that as someone

who is not a lawyer, but it seems to me if you look at the text of

Resolution 1441, and what the Foreign Office lawyers were saying

is simply wrong, but I supported, and I agree with, the final point,

the most important point that Tony Blair made is that what people

don't understand is this, not that Saddam Hussein did not say he was

behind 9/11, but that it change the calculus of risk, so whereas before

everybody said we can contain Saddam Hussein, more or less

indefinitely, after 9/11, people said, "Oh, no, we can no longer

take the risk that somebody who wants to be the leader of the

region who is pursuing weapons of mass destruction, who has links to

terrorism and is a threat to us, we can no longer allow that to

continue because we now know that the risk to us, as we have seen

from 9/11 is too large." Thank you.

George Galloway, can I repeat the question from Steve Simmons is

Clare Short right that the Cabinet was misled over the war in Iraq?

You have collected the only group of five people in which you will

find a majority in favour of the Iraq war on the panel tonight. As

Clare said, the country had made up its mind about this. Lord Falconer,

who is only in Parliament and in the Government because he was Tony

Blair's flat meat is bound to make the case that he made! -- flatmate

is bound to make the case that he made! Now, like even a stopped

clock is right twice a day, the Sir John Chilcott inquiry, which I

described when it was appointed as a parade of establishment flunkies

is beginning to get some of the truth out into the open. I don't

think that anybody who listened to Short shrt's evidence this week in

front -- Clare Short's evidence this week in front of the inquiry

is in any doubt that the Cabinet was misled. Charlie was not there,

I was not there, but who do you believe? Lord Falconer or Clare

Short? Again, the country has made up its mind. Islamist extreme ist,

fan atism is spreading like topsy around the work. Fanaticism stocks

it in many another land, including according to Melanie's book, London

and Istan. That young Muslims have been radicalised by the decisions

that Sven have been made, and finally, David, there were no

weapons of mass destruction. Therefore Iraq…

Iraq was not in breach of any UN resolutions which is why the UN

didn't authorise the war. Indeed, Iraq was invaded because it did not

have weapons of mass destruction. North Korea will never be invaded

because it does have weapons of mass destruction!

Theresa May? Was the Cabinet ministers misled? Your party was in

favour of it? Were you misled? is impossible to for me to say that,

I was not sitting around the Cabinet table in receipt of the

information given. The point of the inquiry, is that one of the things

it is looking at is about the information given to the Cabinet,

to Parliament, to the public, as to whether or not there was misleading

information given. The way it is going, it looks as if misleading

information was given, but we have to wait and see for the result of

that inquiry. The other things that are coming out of the inquiry,

clearly, are first is that there was no proper planning for the

aftermath of the war. That involved, obviously, the military, also

Clare's international development department and secondly, that,

sadly, because of decisions being taken by Gordon Brown when he was

the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our troops were sent into

harm's way without having been provided with all of the proper

equipment. On the first of the three points,

who misled? I said that as things were looking at the moment, it

looked as if some misleading information was given.

By whom? By whom? Well, some of the statements made by the Prime

Minister in relation to the 45 days for example. 4 a minutes! You are

saying that the Prime Minister misled Parliament? I am saying that

the Sir John Chilcott inquiry is saying whether that was the case.

I said that it was certainly looking at some of the facts that

have come before the inquiry, that was the case, but other issues have

been raised about the way in which our troop were sent into battle

without the proper equipment. The man up in the right? Clare, why

didn't you resign earlier? You were obviously against the war. Had you

resigned before Robin Cook, you would have caused a crack in the

damn. I have answered it before Chilcot

and many times. I booked my slot to resign. Tony Blair has me in and

says what would change your mind. I said a second resolution from the

UN. To settle Palestine and get the Palestinian state, that is the core

problem in the Middle East, if you did that, you could get everyone in

the Arab world to cope rate in dealing with the problem. By then

there is what the -- there was the roadmap organisation. If the war is

unstoppable, there was clear agreemented needed that the UN

would lead after the war. That they would help to get internationals to

help to rebuild the situation in Iraq. He got me in again, said more

about the roadmap. Then he had me in again to say that

President Bush has promised that the UN will lead. So, I was in a

dilemma. I thought we cannot stop the war, the Tories were voting

with the Government, it was go to pass, if these two things were done,

the Middle East would be different. I thought that Tony Blair was

sincere, I took a lot of flak for it. I still think it was the right

thing to do if he had meant it. We could have retrieved the mess that

we have. You were niave to believe him?

Snieflt yes, I was. If the Yes, I was.

If the Iraq war is illegal, how will the MPs be blamed? Lord

Falconer? I don't think the MPs are remotely to blame. I don't think

that the Government is, either, even a war crime that has been

committed. The Government acted honestly on the basis of legal

advice. Somebody must be responsible. If

the Government or the Prime Minister acts illegally, there is

no meaning to the word? For the possibility of a war crime, there

must be intent to commit a criminal offence. There would… But that is

not the position. How revealing that answer is, even if the inquiry

finds that the Government acted illegally, because they didn't mean

to act illegally, nothing can happen to them! Away with all of

them. All of themment sweep them The man in green.

It is more a question of misleading the Cabinet or the MPs. It is more

a question of arm-twisting. We went to see our local MP for Coventry

South. He was one of the Labour MPs who said he wouldn't support the

war without a United Nations resolution. He said he was taken in

to meet Tony Blair first time ever, he never met him before and he was

threatened, this is what would happen. If you vote against this

war, it will be a political crisis. There was more than being misled.

There was arm-twisting going on and pressure put on the Labour MPs who

were perhaps seen to be waivering. It isn't just a question of

misleading. Loads of people marched against this war. Millions of

people knew this war was wrong, why didn't they? Charlie Falconer.

Millions of people did demonstrate against the war and significant

numbers of members of Parliament both on the Labour side and on the

Conservative side who whipped their MPs to vote in favour of the war,

voted against it. Ultimately for everybody involved, they had to

make a decision and I don't know about Jim Cunningham but most

people made that decision on the basis of their view of what the

right course was at the time. You have got massive arms twisting.

Massive course to loyalty and you have loyalty to your Prime Minister

and to your party and the pressures on people were fen phenomenal.

Cherie joined in and got on to the women MPs. It was a horrible time.

George Galloway, what do you say to what Melanie Phillips has written

about you, that you were the principle cheerleader for Saddam

Hussein and therefore anything that you say on this matter should be

taken with caution? Well, I was elected in 2005 in East London,

despite the best efforts of the Government and their wives

precisely because of my stance on Iraq so I have a mandate for my

position on Iraq and if the Government had listened to me and

the millions who were marching against the war we wouldn't be in

this mess today and as for these MPs, if they were really fooled,

they're too stupid to be MPs and if they weren't fooled, they're too

wicked. Everybody who voted against the war should be voted out.

Everybody who voted for the war should be voted out.

The man in the yellow T-shirt. I agrow with Lord Falconer that --

agree with Lord Falconer that the Cabinet wasn't misled. I can't

understand. How do you know? Hang on, Clare. I

want to ask Clare why won't you respect the advice of Lord

Goldsmith who is an experienced lawyer?

Well, Lord Goldsmith has been before the Chilcot inquiry. We

found out more about his position than we've ever known. That he did

a legal opinion. That he kept secret and didn't circulate to the

Cabinet even though under the Ministerial Code you are supposed

to do that. He changed his mind a second time and changed his mind a

third time and didn't tell the Cabinet that he asked Tony Blair to

sign a paper to say the opposite of what what hance what Blix was

saying. He is a commercial lawyer. So in brief, that's why I don't

respect what he said. He was not honest with the Cabinet. He said,

"there is no doubt." Do you want to come back briefly.

You would have helped if you came out sooner and people would have

had more respect of your views if you come out a bit sooner.

We have dealt with that. We have done that point. We are

going to move on because we have lots more questions.

In light of the recent revelations into John Terry's private life, do

you believe the law used to stop the stories coming out is fair?

Recent revelations about John Terry's private life. He used

injunctions and is it fair to stop things about your private life

being published. Melanie Phillips No, it is not fair and it is not

right. This idea that people should have privacy is fine if people are

really private characters, but if you are the captain of England, you

have a public position and if you are indulging in behaviour which

brings your team and your country into disrepute then people have a,

I think, journalists have an obligation to bring this to public

attention. I this a lot of strange things have been written about this

character, John Terry. I find it extraordinary not not not following

the national obsession with football as closely as I should. I

only recently learned that his behaviour for a long time has been

one of mass public debortary, public brawling, urinenating into a

beer glass. Having sex with a 17- year-old fan in his Bentley. None

of this mattered at all until he had an affair with the former

girlfriend of a team-mate where upon the balloon went up. What sort

of values are these? I think that somebody who has behaved in this

publicly fashion for him to be the captain of England, a role model

for our people and an emblem of our country is an absolute disgrace and

the real disgrace is he wasn't chucked out a long time ago and the

idea that we should be prevented from knowing about this creep

because of a view that he is entitled to his private life, sure

he is entitled to his private life, but he shouldn't have a public

position as captain as England.

George Galloway. Well, I am against a privacy law. I

have always have been and I I spoke in Parliament when an attempt was

made by a Private Members' Bill. We shouldn't get one by decisions of

judges accountable to no one, certainly not to Parliament. But I

thought that was a lot of hypocrisy from Melanie. John Terry is the

England of the England football team because he is a good leader of

men on the football pitch. He is not running for Pope or sainthood,

he is a footballer. His wild events that she described graphically has

nothing - too graphically - I was uncomfortable with it.

Ah, you lead a sheltered life, we know.

I don't have a Bentley and I'm sure you would be right about that

because you would be defaming him if you weren't. He didn't have an

affair with a team-mate's partner. That's false. It was the ex-partner

of a team-mate. And it is an allegation, just to

cover your back too. Yes, he betrayed his wife and

that's a matter between him and his wife. It is nothing to do with

Melanie Phillips and I don't think it is anything to do with his job

as captain of the England football team. I hope he lifts the World Cup

as captain of the England football team.

The lady on the right. With the thousands of of people

dying in Haiti at the moment, with the economy and people losing their

houses and losing their jobs, the war is still going on, don't we

think it is disrespectful spending so much airtime on what's

essentially a footballer?

Well, I say what I always say when people say what you've just said,

these questions come and we choose the ones that are most asked why

our audience and that's why we're talking about them.

What did Jesus say, "let he is without sin, cast the first stone."

The media throw it over the press and over and over, pictures of the

women. How do the women feel when it is throughout the press and the

children and so on? They love it. They love the detail which I must

say I haven't read. I think there is some right to privacy in the

European convention of Human Rights, each of you has a right to a

private family life and it is how the courts interpret that. I don't

like the idea of these super injunctions, but I hate the

hypocrisy of the media who say, "now we can expose everything he

did." It is a chance for all the sleazy, dirty stuff to be poured

all over the press, over and over again. It is a matter for his wife.

I am sure there is loads of pain in that family about happened. The

people who run the team has to decide what is right for the team

and the press who indulge in this are a bunch of hypocrites.

Theresa May. Everybody does have a

right to privacy, but anybody who is involved in public life has to

accept to a certain extent you forego your right to privacy, by

putting your self into the public frame and wanting to be in that

position. I do think it is right there should be an ability to if

newspapers are going to come out with a story to get an injunction

because there maybe issues about the veracity of that story as to

whether it is it is correct and it should be possible for somebody to

be able to, I think, take an injunction out and decisions have

to be taken, do have to be taken by judges to what is in the public

interest and to be revealed. But certainly I share a lot of the

comments that have been made about the way in which issue seems to be

hyped up by the press and and they want to go into the detail and

interviews with everybody involved. Public figures must accept how we

behave, everybody here is a public figure is actually of interest to

people. Do you think he should stay captain

of the team? Well, I'm probably about one of the worst people

possibly other than Melanie who should give a comment on the

captaincy of the England football team.

What matters is he going to be able to keep the confidence of the

players? Because it is because of his leadership skills he was

selected as captain. If he can keep the confidence of the players, yes

and if not, no. He cannot keep the respect of the

players. He didn't have an affair with anyone. He had an affair with

his best mate's partner. Ex-partner. He has no respect for

his Chelsea team-mates and no respect for his England team-mates.

He has no respect to be England captain. He can't respect that. How

is he allowed to lift the World Cup for our country? He does not

deserve that right. And you on the left.

I think I'm one of a number of people who couldn't care a less

about John Terry's private life. For me, the most annoying thing it

knocked Tony Blair's performance the Chilcot inquiry off the front

pages on Saturday morning which is where it should have been. If it

doesn't affect his performance on the pitch, his crimes have have are

no worse than Tiger Woods'. In a society where we live, people

understand that prif privacy is something you should keep in things

that are private. People don't like their private life being spread all

over their neighbours or all over the newspapers. I think everybody's

got an entitlement to a private life. I don't think if you become a

footballer, even if you become the captain of England, you forfeit.

What the judge has do is balance whether his right to privacy has

been overtaken by things he said or things that he has done. But

everybody here is absolutely damming John Terry on the basis of

what we are reading in the newspapers about his private life.

I excuse Melanie in this respect because Melanie referred to the

fact that he has done various things in public, he may have been

convicted of criminal offences. Form your own view about that. But

I am not in favour of the newspapers feeling that because

John Terry is a famous footballer, everything is fair game. The editor

of the Daily Mail made a speech in which he urged that there be no

privacy law of any sort. He said, "newspapers spend all their time

revealing how awful the politicians are." How would they be able to

finance t he said, if there wasn't scandal scandal scandal as well to

sell the newspapers? So what John Terry is there for is to make

people buy the newspapers and as far as the newspapers are concerned,

John Terry's right to privacy is a small casualty to pay to continue

to be in business so I am rather simp thet lick to John --

sympathetic to John Terry's position.

Do you want to come to the defence of your editor. He said scandal was

there to finance the the politicians.

The reason they sell so many papers the public want to read what they

print. You were saying it is important

that people know about John Terry's private life. You don't think that.

It is a way of you selling your newspaper.

Well, everything is a way of selling.

What about John Terry's wife. Think of her. This must hurt so much.

The reporting of your own utterances may have sold our

newspaper. That's hard to believe, but anyway.

It is impossible to believe that. Is anyone really saying that is a

crime, but to say that it is hypocritical because the fact that

these things sell newspapers apparently according to Clare and

yourself, that means that it is not in the public interest. And I think

it is in the public interest to have a discussion about whether a

man who is brawling in public and… Two brief points, yes? When I saw

this, I thought, here we go again. Whatever John Terry has done, it is

a matter for his conscious and his family. It is back he got on as

being a sportsman and got on winning.

You, sir? Surely anybody taking over the job as England captain,

realises that they should abrole model for young people. They should

concentrate on being on the back pages, not on the front! Well, said,

sir. Should a person have the right to

choose to die when they're quality of life is no longer bearable?

is based, presumably on prach purchase prach's lecture, Shaking

Hands With Death? Absolutely. Melanie Phillips? Everyone has the

right to die. Suicide is sweel -- Terry Pratchett.

-- suicide is illegal. The issue is whether someone has

the right to expect somebody else to procure his death. I don't think

anyone has the right to expect somebody else to bring about the

death of somebody, however awful their circumstances may be. I, like,

I think everybody, was very, very moved by what Terry Pratchett said.

I thought that he delivered a splendid or ation. One has to have

nothing but compassion for people who are in those circumstances,

fear that they are going to be in the circumstances and for the

relatives looking after people whose condition appears to be

unbearable. These situations are awful. I speak as somebody whose

own mother had Multiple Sclerosis Society, Parkinson as and dementia.

I watched her disintegrate. What I came to realise from that is the

extreme vulnerablility of somebody that that -- in that position. For

a start, how is anyone to say, whether someone who has Alzheimer's

or some other terrible disease is not suffering from either a

disintegration of their brain, which affects the capacity to make

judgments or depression. When assisted suicide was introduced in

the state of or began in the United States. The BMJ showed a study that

showed that something like one in six of individuals helped to commit

suicide were found to be suffering from depression, which the doctors

had not picked up. Everywhere, people with the best of intentions

introduce a suicide or euthanasia law, we are on a slippery slope.

People say to restrict it to people with terminal illness, but within a

short space of time, experience shows us that includes, people with

Alzheimer's or mental illness and people who are not terminally ill

but just suffering from chronic depression. So there is no end to.

So, the applicant, as Terry, going to a tribunal, saying he wishes to

make the decision, and whether there is a tribunal of judges, that

does not appeal? I think it is grotesque that we would have in

this country death panels where a an official body sits in judgment

as to whether you should live or die. Who are they to say what is

your quality of life? The idea that this is something that could be

codified in this way is actually obscene.

Theresa May? I think that Terry Pratchett is doing a very important

job in highlighting the problems of dementia, which, frankly is

something that we all know many people suffer from. Is often just

swept under the carpet and nobody really likes to talk about it. So

what he's been doing in raising the issues is very important. Having

said that I don't agree with him in terms of the abaiblt to be able to

not just make a decision about yourself but expect somebody else

to be able to help you in switing suicide and in dying. It is because

-- committing suicide and in dying. It is because I fear if we have a

situation where assisted suicide is recognised and accepted that there

would be circumstances in which vulnerable people who do not want

to take the decision, found themselves being helped to die by

people hoping to make money out of it, who were taking advantage of

them. We don't want to get into a society where we are enabling that

to happen. The amazing story that we have seen today about the brain

scans on patients who are in a vegetative state or post vegetative

state should make us all stop and think again about the way that

we've been treating people who are otherwise thought… Are you

surprised that the two most recent polls, the Telegraph and the

Panorama one show that three quarters of people asked say that

they are in favour of assisted suicide? I was a little surprised

by that. I thought that more would be concerned about what could

happen if assisted suicide was allowed and vulnerable people find

themselves being assisted to their death when they did not want to die

and were being assisted to their death as others were taking

advantage of them. I don't want us to get into a situation where we

are allowing that to happen. Lord Falconer? I disagree with both

Theresa May and Melanie. The question is do we want to make it a

crime to assist somebody to commit suicide. We have seen so many cases

in recent months. Two examples, one is the Welsh rugby player, who was

paralysed, despite the fact that his parents tried to persuade him

not to take his own life, he insisted on doing it, they assisted

him to go to Switzerland, in a clinic, where it was lawful, he

took his own life. They would be guilty of the crime of assisting

suicide. Do we in this country want to criminalise people like that

boy's parents? He was over 21. Debbie Purdy took a case to the

courts. She has a degenerative illness that will make it

impossible for her to live a life she wants. She has a husband, she

wants to be able to go to Switzerland to take her own life.

If her husband goes with her, that would again be a crime. Both of

people who are trying to do the best for their loved one. I don't

think they should be criminals. I think that this country has no

stomach for prosecuting people like that I think that we should have a

law in practise that where you are a compassionate assister and the

person who wants to die is absolutely clear what is going on,

then you should be allowed to assist. The stuff about talking to

people in comas or vegetative states, don't affect that. It will

not deal with a case where someone cannot form his own view, but the

polls in the Telegraph are significant. They iing caned that

the society that we live in -- they indicate that the society we live

in does not have the stomach to criminalise these people. We should

change the laws to reflect that Would you go further and say that

there should be a tribunal or a process for deciding that a family

can assist in a suicide in this country, not going to Switzerland?

I think there needs to be some sort of protective mechanism. I slightly

share Melanie's feeling that the tribunal is not quite the way to do

But there should be so sort of protection. I find it a

contradiction, to do this, but yet doctors will withdraw or with hold

treatment, resulting in a death of a patient, so we have to reconcile

with these two things. George Galloway? I agree with

Melanie Phillips. That is not something that happens every day. I

agree with her in every respect. Both in how painful life is for the

families of people. Who may entertain these suicideal thoughts

and may wish to involve their families in the procuring of that

suicide, but also in the danger of a slippery slope. The young man has

made just the best point of the night. This is another area of

judge-made law. Increasingly judges are making decisions to withdraw

food and water, even, never mind medicine from people, when

Parliament has never passed a law for that to happen. It's a bit like

the privacy point. That we're getting a privacy law, judgment by

judgment and we're getting euthanasia, judgment by jufplt.

Parliament, which is -- judgement. Parliament, which is answerable to

the people, should be making the decisions. If it comes to a

decision, I'll be against it. I tell you the real danger. Not just

that family members with something to gain from the estate will hurry

old granny along. You have had your time, the quality of life is not

very good, but governments may come in, maybe in 90 days who recognise

that you can save a vast amount of money by medically cleansing the

wards of the chronically sick, elderly and geriatric and before

you know it there is a nightmarish vision of a panel of Dr Deaths

saying thumbs up or thumbs down. George is talking about something

completely different. What do you say to Terry Pratchett

who has early Alzheimer's who said in his lecture if he could know he

could choose when to die as he knows that he will deteriorate, if

he knew when he could choose to day, he would learn to be able to live

every day of his life with joy. The reality is, as Melanie said,

people can commit suicide, no-one can stop them doing, but if we get

into a society where someone can help others to commit suicide,

there are far too many dangers in that, to agree to it, however

compelling the argument made by Terry Pratchett.

I think the fact that in the case of the rugby player, the parents

took him to Zurich, the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service

decided not to prosecute them and the case that we have seen in the

news in the last week where the mother of a daughter who had had ME

for the last however many years helped her daughter to die with

morphine injections, she was taken to court, she was found not guilty,

doesn't this show that we don't have, say, a stomach for

prosecuting these people any way? think it is surely more humane to

allow those with the capacity, the right to die, especially

considering the failings in the dementia care.

Clare Short? When I was a child suicide was illegal. There was a

woman in the street that I grew up in, she survived, came home and

then the police came to prosecute her. So it's not true, these things

don't change. If there is someone in deep pain, terminally ill,

losing their ability, they are clear, have written it down, they

just need to take the paracetamol, whatever it is, I think, under

proper control, so it cannot be misused, people have that right. As

the young woman said at the back. We are hypocrites, all of these

people are going to the Dignitas clinic, we are not prosecuting the

relatives, so we are already allowing it. So we have to be more

grown up about it. Can you only go to Dignitas where

people have the amount of money that you need, but those who don't,

don't have the right? There must be strict rules, that there is no

pressure of any kind. You would want this for yourself?

Yes, indeed. Snuefplt but yes a lay and discretion to But that is what

we have now. Assisted suicide is a crime, but

the fact is where it is genuinely the case that the person assisting

the suicide is motivated only by compassion, there is no court which

will ever do anything other… why do we change the law? Because

it is important it remains a crime in order that it can be tested out

to make sure… This area of the law is possibly union yeeblg, but

it is a very, -- unique, but it is important. It has to be tested out,

whether for example that the person did give concept, without duress,

in sound mind. Whether the relatives were motivated by passion.

Can I interrupt? No, you can't. Juries can do this? Juries can do

this. Killing somebody or procuring their

death is a very, very serious matter. If as a society we say it

does not matter, that it does not require the basic protection of the

law, then I'm afraid we are to become a brutalised society.

That's it for Question Time this week. We have come to the end of

our hour. We are -- we are in Belfast next week, the week after