|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
01.04.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The
election will NOT be held on May the third even though that's the date
Tony Blair had chosen, so what other plans may be de-railed as a result
of their current problems? I'll be asking the Trade and Industry Secretary,
Stephen Byers. We'll be reporting from Scotland, where Labour is under
greater pressure than anywhere else in the country. And we can disclose
the extraordinary lengths the government's going to to get us to vote,
whenever the election is called. That's after the news read by Fiona Bruce.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: They do things differently
in Scotland, fixed parliamentary terms and a separate agenda. So what
sort of pressures is that bringing to bear on the Labour Party?
And the government's
controversial plans to persuade more of us to vote in the general election.
RICHARD BRANSON: The government made it clear
to us that if we won it, that they wanted to make sure that we participated
with them in using lottery tickets to encourage people to vote.
HUMPHRYS: And I'll be talking to John
Redwood, the Chairman of the Conservative Parliamentary Campaign's Unit
about their response to the Election date news.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first however secure
a government may seem it can always be thrown off course by events that
no-one could have foreseen. Such an event, of course, as the foot-and-mouth
outbreak. Tony Blair has been forced to abandon his plans to hold the
elections on May the third, even though that was part of Labour's hope.
One cabinet minister with perhaps more reason than most to regret that,
in a sense, is the Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers and he's
with me.
Mr Byers, it has been
said, I am sure you are one of those ministers, who said it, everybody
seems to have said it, Britain is not closed for business and yet that
is now the message that Tony Blair is delivering with the news that the
election has been postponed.
STEPHEN BYERS MP: Well let's wait to see exactly
what the official statement is, the only elections that have been planned
for May the third were the Local Elections.
HUMPHRYS: ..officially.
BYERS: ..officially planned for
May the third were the Local Elections and if there is a delay I think
it should be a short delay. I don't think it would help if it was postponed
indefinitely. I think that would send out the wrong signal, particularly
adversely effecting the tourist industry. But I think where we are at today,
there has been a drop in people visiting the countryside, going to tourist
attractions, I think we can overcome that with a heavy promotion and publicity
campaign and I think provided that we don't give the signal that things
are in great difficulty and that's why the Local Elections might be delayed
then we can overcome those particular problems.
HUMPHRYS: But it is bound to send
that signal isn't it. I mean one of your colleagues, the Culture Secretary
Chris Smith was saying just yesterday morning and I quote "we must send
the message that Britain..." - "we must not" - I beg your pardon - "we
must not send the message that Britain is somehow closed". So he clearly
wanted the elections to go ahead. I mean have you not been told?
BYERS: I don't think it will send
that message. I think what it will be is that the Prime Minister will want
to consider and he's been listening and he will make a decision as to whether
or not the Local Elections should go ahead on May the third.
HUMPHRYS: He hasn't told you yet?
BYERS: The Prime Minister will,
I think, tell the country whether or not the Local Elections will go ahead
on May the third. I don't know what decision he will take. What I do know
is that the Prime Minister's instincts, both personally and politically
are always to unite and not to divide. And I know that he will put the
national interest ahead of any party political advantage. I know he will
do that and then we will hear what he has got to say in due course.
HUMPHRYS: You say we'll hear what
he's got to say but obviously he or one of his lieutenants, trusted lieutenants
have already told the Political Editor of The Sun and the Political Editor
of the BBC. I mean we know..
BYERS: There's been a lot of speculation
John. If you were to go back a week you'll see people there were predicting
with great certainty it was definitely May the third. We wake up this morning
and people are saying it's definitely going to be...
HUMPHRYS: We work up yesterday
morning to hear The Sun telling us it was definitely not May the third.
BYERS: But a week ago, The Sun
was saying it was May the third so let's wait for the Prime Minister to
make a decision about the Local Elections. The important thing in all of
this though, is first of all to get on top of and contain the foot-and-mouth
disease. It's worth reflecting it's only effecting one per cent of the
livestock but in certain parts of our country, Cumbria and Devon and the
Welsh borders it is clearly having a dramatic effect and it's right that
we should be sensitive to the concerns being expressed by local people
in those areas but not to get it out of proportion because there are large
parts of the country which are simply not effected by the disease.
HUMPHRYS: But one of the reasons
that we have, if we have, got it out of proportion and clearly we have,
is that MAFF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food led by Nick
Brown got it wrong right at the beginning because they told us "stay away
from the countryside". I mean that was the very very clear message, they
thanked us a few days after that first weekend for not going into the countryside,
that is why tourism has been destroyed. It sends quite a message about
MAFF, the Ministry doesn't it?
BYERS: I think people right at
the very beginning of the disease, recognising how significant it is and
the damage it can cause, were rightly cautious and I think people will
understand that. What if six weeks ago people had just said, well yeah
go to the countryside as normal, then I think John, you'd have been the
first to criticise if the disease had been spread more widely because of
that. What we have been trying to do is to contain the disease and I think
we are now on top of it and that means we are more able now to say yes,
the countryside is open, there are large parts of it which are not effected
at all, there are some areas where you have to be very cautious of course
but to say the countryside is still open for business which it is.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the point is
that MAFF could have given a more measured warning, that's the point and
the reason that it didn't do that is because as a Ministry it is too narrowly
focussed. It has the interests of only one group of people as its concern
and that is the farmers. Nobody said, what about the rest of rural Britain,
nobody in MAFF said that, Nick Brown didn't say that. The Ministry is concerned
only with the farmers.
BYERS: I go back to the point I
made earlier, I think it's understandable that there is caution, that what
people want to do is to ensure that the disease did not spread rapidly
throughout the country. It was very important to be able to do that because
then by containing it, we can now concentrate in those areas where clearly
it is a very real problem. Had that not happened, then it could have been
actually spread far more widely than it has at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the result
of the message that they did deliver which was 'don't go anywhere near
the countryside'. The result of that was the rural catastrophe, crisis
that we are now seeing; hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds lost
to businesses in areas that should not have been lost. You sometimes have
to wonder whether anyone really worries about rural Britain.
BYERS: Well they do and that's
why we've put in place some very positive measures to help those businesses
which are effected, not just the farming industry but the tourist industry
as well in particular, giving them help in terms of rate relief, in terms
of help with VAT, with tax, with National Insurance contributions and so
on. All of those measures are now in place, not just restricted to the
farming industry but to the whole of the rural industry which has been
effected.
HUMPHRYS: But that - those are
crisis measures aren't they and if you look at the broader picture, we
learned just Friday or Saturday that the Rural Affairs Committee, set up
to co-ordinate the government's policies effecting rural areas has met
only once since it was set up and that's a year ago. You're a member of
the committee, so you'll know about that.
BYERS: Well I am, it's a really
old fashioned way of looking at things, that you have to get people together
to sit around a table...
HUMPHRYS: ..that's how things are
done in Whitehall..
BYERS: Not with new technology,
not with being able to communicate with each other and the important thing
is there are a group of Cabinet Ministers that have responsibility for
the rural community, we communicate, we deal with each other, we meet occasionally,
we meet in cabinet and that's the way in which we can deal with things.
It is a very old fashioned way of looking at matters, a very BBC view John,
to look at committee structures as being the way forward.
HUMPHRYS: We've cut some of our
meetings, so I'm told, I don't go to any meetings so I wouldn't know...
BYERS: I think there is a better
way of doing it which is making sure there is a dedicated group of Cabinet
Ministers that have issues of rural concern as a priority and we do that
and we communicate with other.
HUMPHRYS: Is it not necessary to
get together occasionally, to say look, how are we doing and what's happening
here and what's happening there, and this is a very important committee?
BYERS: We do, we do. We meet in
cabinet, we talk about things there, we can talk on the margins of those
meetings. We have formal meetings occasionally, we've had a rural White
Paper. You know, we're addressing the real concerns. My own department
is doing lots of work establishing small businesses, helping the Post Office
network in rural communities. There's a lot that we're doing, there is
a shared agenda, and we're working actually in a very coherent way.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't the reality, and
I hardly expect you to say this, loyalty apart from anything else would
prevent you from doing so, but that MAFF, the ministry is a disaster area?
No matter who you speak to who used to work there - clearly people who
are there at the moment say "Oh no, it's doing a fine job" as you'd expect.
But the people who used to run the ministry almost invariably say "It's
bonkers to have this ministry still in two-thousand and one. Let's close
it down, let's fold the whole thing up and let's put its responsibility
into your department".
BYERS: Thanks very much.
HUMPHRYS: Well, there you go, if
you've got not enough to do, the Department of Trade and Industry, but
realistically that's where it ought to be, didn't it?
BYERS: I'm not sure this is the
right time to look at, you know, ......
HUMPHRYS: Possibly not.
BYERS: But the important thing
is to get on top of foot- and-mouth disease. Now we're containing it,
the National Farmers Union has said that the overriding policy I now right,
we are getting on top of it. We need to contain and eradicate it. I have
to say it's a terrible distraction to begin a debate now about the future
of MAFF.
HUMPHRYS: Well, except that it
does get to the heart of the thing doesn't it. I mean if you look at farming
now, we making a great fuss about foot-and -mouth, and quite rightly too
most people would say, because of the suffering that it is causing many
farmers and of course the animals themselves. But farming is a relatively
small industry in terms of the total economy. Looking at some figures
it's about point nine per cent. If you look at your budget, if you look
at your budget comparing it with MAFF, MAFF spends if you take out the
CAP and all those subsidies about one-point-three billion pounds, you spend
if you take out subsidies and things about one-point-four billion pounds.
That is manifestly crazy. Agriculture nought-point-nine per cent of the
GDP, manufacturing alone, apart from all the other responsibilities you've
had, eighteen-point-eight billion pounds. I mean it is silly isn't it.?
BYERS: Well, it's silly to get
to a situation where we have industries which are dependent upon subsidies,
and that's one of the very important.....
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but putting that
aside, ...
BYERS: The question you're raising
John, I think we've got to get to a situation where for example we reform
CAP, which is at the crux of many of the problems that we face not just
in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe as well, and that's a top
priority to see changes there, because it would open up a whole round of
new trade negotiations world-wide for example, which would really benefit
British industry more generally. So we do need to look at the whole sort
of subsidy culture and I do think that farming has a very important role
to play within the United Kingdom and we should always recognise that.
Now, there will be changes and there's been some very progressive work
which we've been doing with the National Farmers Union in particular to
identify a new agenda and new way forward as far as farming is concerned.
But remember a year ago, farming was facing very real difficulties and
the first priority was to make sure that we could turn the corner as far
as farming was concerned, and indeed if you look at the figures up until
the turn of the year and indeed the first six weeks of this year all the
indications were that farming was on the up, that we had indeed turned
the corner, that the measures we'd put in place were working, and working
well, and then suddenly we got foot-and-mouth, and now we have to deal
with the consequences of that. That really has to be the top priority
for any government at the present time.
HUMPHRYS: And clearly the bigger
questions are going to be raised after the election as you suggest, but
your own position in this might be difficult might it, .this is why I raised
the point right at the beginning of this interview about delays, the delay
in the election having some knock-on effect. As far as your own position
is concerned it has been called into question because of the allegations
that were made in a book by Tom Bower over the way your department handled
the inquiry into the business affairs of Mr Robinson, Geoffrey Robinson.
You have threatened to sue the Daily Mail and the publishers of the book
as a result of those allegations. Have you issued the writ yet?
BYERS: Well, the allegations weren't
about my department. They were about my own personal conduct. They were
very serious because what they did say was that I received a report into
the activities of companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson, and when
I got that report I looked at it and I deliberately decided, to quote Tom
Bower, " to bury it, to suppress it and to deny it to parliament". That
is totally untrue, and what did happen for the record is that two weeks
after I was appointed to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I received
advice from my Permanent Secretary Sir Michael Scholar saying that in his
view I should rule myself out of dealing with any business activities,
any investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson. I
took that advice and as a result I saw none of the documents and none of
the papers, and so I didn't see a report, therefore I was in no position
to deny it to parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Let me come back to that
in just a second if I may, but repeat the question. Have you received
a writ yet?
BYERS: No, what happens is if
you've been involved in this sort of process John, you will know that you
have to give the person making the allegation that I believe to be defamatory
the opportunity of an apology and a retraction.
HUMPHRYS: And they've said no.
Absolutely no, the Mail has said over and over again "He can whistle!"
BYERS: Well, there are letters
going between lawyers at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: So you have asked for
that apology?
BYERS: Yes I have.
HUMPHRYS: And the Mail has made
it perfectly clear that you're not going to get it. They've sent letters
back to you presumably.
BYERS: Well, there are still letters
going between lawyers as they do.
HUMPHRYS: Right., so if you do
not get that apology, because it's now a fortnight we're talking about
isn't it - if you do not get that apology you will proceed with the writ?
BYERS: Well, a fortnight is not
long in these matters, and I have apparently up to three years to bring
any action against the Daily Mail, so let's see what happens. I hope that
when the Daily Mail can see exactly what the sequence of events were that
they will recognise that what they said and what they printed wasn't accurate,
and they would feel able to say, put in the retraction and say sorry we
got this wrong.
HUMPHRYS: And just to be quite
clear about this, in the absence of a retraction from the Daily Mail within
a reasonable period, I mean clearly you're not going to wait three years
even if you could wait three years. If the Daily Mail does not issue a
retraction you will definitely issue a writ. Is that the situation?
BYERS: I hope it doesn't come to
that, but if it has to be the case then yes, that will be so.
HUMPHRYS: Because you'd have to
really wouldn't you. I mean not to issue a writ having made the threat
would be damaging, very damaging for you.
BYERS: It's not that so much.
I just want the record to be put straight, and I can understand why the
mistake was made, because all of the information would have led Tom Bower
to believe that I was actually involved in the investigation and was seeing
all the papers, which is why I think he.....
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
BYERS: ...he came to the conclusion
he did. That wasn't the case, and so all that I want really is for the
Daily Mail and for Tom Bower - he's a very good reporter - to actually
say: Look we got this wrong, we're sorry, and the true facts are that Byers
just didn't know of the investigation, didn't see the report.
HUMPHRYS: Right, well let's have
a little look at that then and forget about you being involved in the investigation
itself. Of course, you weren't involved in the investigation, nobody believes
that...
BYERS: ...I'm glad to hear it.
HUMPHRYS: ...as Sir Michael Scholar
- well, involved in the investigation itself. But now let's look at the
sequence of events that followed the publication of that report. You've
said that your department had absolutely nothing to do with the decision
as to whether that report was published. That you had nothing to do with
the decision as to whether that report was published because it was published
under Section 447 of the Companies Act. But, and this is an important point
it seems to many people, there were exemptions available to you, you could
have published, the fact is, that many people believe that your department
did not want to publish it, you didn't want to publish it because it would
have been embarrassing for the government, given what it contained.
BYERS: No, well actually you're
making a fundamental mistake of first of all believing that somehow politicians
decided what sort of investigation was to be carried out...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, I've already moved
past of the point of the investigation to the point of the publication
of the report.
BYERS: Right, so we're clear then,
that it was a decision by civil servants to conduct an investigation under
Section 447 of the Companies Act, which was the case, so let's be clear
about that. They decided it should be a Section 447 investigation, which
is the norm in this sort of situation, to be honest and my department conducts
between two hundred and three hundred such investigations every year.
They find out certain things during the course of that investigation.
In the light of that, they decide, without reference to any politicians,
that Geoffrey Robinson or his solicitors, can be informed that no further
action would be taken, because they didn't find out anything during the
course of those investigations, that they felt warranted any further action
to occur.
HUMPHRYS: Well, that really is
the nub of it, isn't there, I mean the fact is what Tom Bower reported
was that they had found an invoice, a signed invoice which proved, he says,
that Mr Robinson was not only paid a large sum of money, two-hundred-thousand
pounds but also solicited that money from Robert Maxwell. Now he was,
at the time of this publication, a government minister and he had said
that he had not solicited or received that money. That is a very substantial
difference isn't it?
BYERS: It's a very substantial
and significant allegation and I think the important thing, going back
to what can be published and what can't be published, is that an investigation
under Section 447 of the Companies Act, is covered by a prohibition under
Section 449...
HUMPHRYS: ...except that there
are strictly defined circumstances under which...
BYERS: ...which allows publication.
HUMPHRYS: That's right and can
I just, for the benefit of the viewer, point out that they say that under
those gateways, as you say, they can be published, results of an enquiry
can, such an enquiry can be published, relating and I quote "to discharge
by a public servant of his duty". Now in this case, there is no question
that Geoffrey Robinson was a public servant and there is no question that
when we talk about his duty, it is the duty of a minister not to lie to
Parliament. So there were very clear areas here that would have allowed
you, had you so wished, to say to Sir Michael Scholar, I want that report
published.
BYERS: No because I'd ruled myself
out of consideration of the matter and that's the very important thing
to realise. I didn't see any report or any consequences of the investigation
because if you rule yourself out the investigation, then you are ruled
out of it. You can't then dip back in and say, oh by the way Sir Michael,
can I have a quick look at the report and how it's proceeding...
HUMPHRYS: ...but you made a statement
to MPs. You told MPs in a written answer, there has been a thorough inquiry
in line with the procedures. Well difficult to see how you could have
known that there had been a thorough inquiry in line with procedures if
you'd not even read the report.
BYERS: Well, I have to reply to
Parliament. Officials cannot do that and it's my responsibility to inform
Parliament and what I sought to do was to be as open as possible, with
the advice that I had received without seeing the details of the investigation...
HUMPHRYS: ...so Sir Michael Scholar
then, so Sir Michael Scholar should have raised the point that I've just
made, should have exploited this exemption because here we had a public
servant being involved. Sir Michael Scholar should have come to you and
said, look minister, this is a very serious matter. This is what this
investigation has turned up.
BYERS: Well the decision taken
was that Section 449 meant that there was a prohibition on publication
but what I can say John, is...
HUMPHRYS: ...except in those circumstances
that I've pointed out...
BYERS: ...well there's a list of
them and there is a counter view to say that the prohibition applies to
the information that was achieved even in these circumstances. But what
is important I think at this stage is that the Parliamentary Commissioner,
who has now begun a further investigation into the activities of Geoffrey
Robinson, should be provided with all of the relevant information. Now
there is a problem as far as what my department discovered from the Section
447 investigation because we believe, and the department believes that
it's covered by a prohibition under Section 449, so what we've been trying
to do is to find another way in which the information can be obtained and
provided to the Parliamentary Commissioner and what we've indicated to
her during the course of last week and I'll be saying this actually tomorrow
more formally, is that there are other ways in which the information can
be obtained by her without falling foul of the restrictions under Section
449.
HUMPHRYS: So to be quite clear
of this, you will provide, you and your department, will provide Elizabeth
Filkin with all the material that she needs properly to look into this
herself.
BYERS: What we've done is to provide
her with the sources of the information that we received during the investigation.
Those sources are not constrained by Section 449 of the Companies Act.
HUMPHRYS: And you will encourage
them to tell her what they told the inquiry?
BYERS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: So she will have every
bit of information that was available to that inquiry?
BYERS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: And you, as the Secretary
of State, want her, I take it now, knowing what we now know, to conduct
a full and thorough investigation.
BYERS: Well, the Parliamentary
Standards body has already said that and that's why they've restarted the
investigation, so she's already been charged by the committee of MPs to
do this. My responsibility I felt, was to make sure that she did have
the relevant information. We are constrained by Section 449 but if we
can find another avenue which allows her to receive the information, then
I think we are doing the appropriate thing, we've managed to do that and
the information will be there for her.
HUMPHRYS: Let me move onto a completely
different area and that is the Euro, this is...we are also moving around
a little bit there. The postponement of the election means that it's going
to knock that whole process back, doesn't it, whether we are going to have
ultimately, whether we are going to have a referendum. The longer the delay
in the election, the greater the need to start assessing those five tests
that Gordon Brown has laid out, the greater the need to get that going
quickly, as far as you're concerned because we all know that you're a pro-Euro
minister, as a guess...
BYERS: ...I'm very pragmatic about
the single currency. I think the policy we have is the one which is absolutely
right. We can see the benefits of joining a successful single currency
in terms of trade, transparency of cost and currency stability but those
five economic tests have to be met. It's got to be in the national interest
and in all of this and whether it's in relation to whether or not the local
elections should be postponed or whether it's in relation to the single
currency, the national interest has to be put first all the time and I've
got no doubt that's what we will do when we come to look at the single
currency and the Prime Minister will do as he looks at whether or not to
postpone the Local Elections.
HUMPHRYS: ...one of the problems
with the strength of the pound, the weakness of the Euro, however you want
to look at it and the relationship between them is what the effect it has
on manufacturing industry. Peter Mandelson wants a referendum for regional....regionally
elected assembly for the North East which is of course your area as well,
our region must grasp the opportunity for constitutional reform, he says,
do you agree with him on that?
BYERS: I am pleased that Peter
has entered the debate about regional policy. I think it's very important,
first of all to have an active regional industrial policy, so that all
of our regions can share in the prosperity that we are seeing down here
in London and the South East and that isn't the case at the moment. So...
HUMPHRYS: But a regional assembly,
an elected assembly.
BYERS: In terms of the structure,
I think local people should determine this themselves. I think there has
to be a degree of accountability. We are giving more powers, we are giving
more resources to the regional development agencies.
HUMPHRYS: So you'd favour a referendum
then?
BYERS: I think we should find
a way. I'm not - whether it has to be a referendum or if there's some other
method then I think we do need to look at that. But we also need to look
at the structures that will flow from it, whether we then have to move
to a unitary system of regional government or local government as well
is something I think we will need to address.
HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thanks
very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Whenever the General Election
comes, the polls tell us Labour is in an impregnable position. But they're
not quite so secure north of the border. In Scotland they have to defend
not only what's happened at Westminster but how they and their Liberal
Democrat allies have performed in the Scottish government too. And the
Opposition is tougher there as well. The Scottish National Party is giving
them a run for their money. Terry Dignan reports on what is likely to
be a very different election from the rest of the United Kingdom.
TERRY DIGNAN: For weeks the parties in
Scotland have been on election footing, rehearsing their battle plans in
readiness for an all-out offensive to take enemy-held constituencies. But
in truth, they've been preparing for the unknown, unsure as to what awaits
them.
When battle commences
here in Scotland the election will be fought in circumstances never before
experienced by the main political parties. This may result in a wholly
new approach to campaigning, quite different from what we'll see in England.
And all because - from a Scottish perspective - political power is no longer
a monopoly of Westminster.
This will be the first
general election since Tony Blair fulfilled his pledge to re-establish
a Scottish Parliament. After elections to the parliament Labour formed
a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats to run Scotland. Led
by the late Donald Dewar, the Scottish Executive took office when the Queen
opened the parliament. The coming general election is for a UK government.
But in Scotland the Executive's performance in the parliament will still
be an issue.
PROFESSOR JAMES MITCHELL: The SNP and the Tories will try
and make use of the Scottish Parliament to embarrass the Labour Party and
the Liberal Democrats as they've been doing during the Parliament since
it was established.
DIGNAN: The SNP, the Scottish National
Party, wants independence. It regards the general election as an opportunity
to cast a verdict on Labour's record in the new Parliament.
ALEX SALMOND MP: Rather than that not being a factor
in the Westminster election, I think it'll spill over into the Westminster
election and what's going on in the Scots parliament will be an issue in
this Westminster election.
DIGNAN: The Tories, too, hope to
exploit Labour's record in the Parliament. They won't be drawing any distinctions
between the Labour-led Executive in Scotland and the Labour Government
at Westminster.
SIR MALCOLM RIFKIND: We happen to be living in
a time when Labour controls all levels of government - they control the
local council here, they control the Scottish Parliament, they control
the United Kingdom Government. The public have a right to use an election
to either praise the Labour Party, if they're pleased with what has been
delivered, or to punish them if they think that there's failed opportunities
and missed opportunities over the last couple of years.
DIGNAN: But ministers in the UK
Government don't run the Scottish Parliament. And they believe it's their
record which should be judged at the general election, not that of the
Scottish Executive.
HELEN LIDDELL MP: Really at the heart of everything
in Scotland is the economy. We've managed to create over a hundred thousand
new jobs, the lowest levels of unemployment for a generation. That is inextricably
linked with the wellbeing of my constituents, and they recognise that requires
a Labour government at Westminster with the kind of economic policies we've
been pursuing to bring stability rather than boom and bust.
DIGNAN: Conservatives like Sir
Malcolm Rifkind are stepping up face to face meetings with voters in marginal
constituencies. They hope to regain seats they lost at the last election
by taking votes from Labour and their Liberal Democrat partners in the
Scottish Executive.
UNNAMED MAN: As you know, as you find out
probably yourself, when you do take the trains you're stuck.
DIGNAN: The Conservatives - and
SNP - believe the Liberal Democrats are in retreat.
RIFKIND: In the past people voted
Liberal Democrat because they didn't want Labour or Conservative. Now they
find in Scotland that the Liberal Party has become a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Labour Party; they're a junior member of a coalition.
MITCHELL: As we've seen in the
past when Labour and the Liberal Democrats have worked closely together,
as in nineteen-ninety-two, the Liberal Democrats can suffer in areas such
as the north east of Scotland. And this is going to be a real worry for
the Liberal Democrats.
SALMOND: I think the Liberal party's
going to pay a heavy price for being seen as Labour's client party as they
now are in Scotland, and they're going to find it much more difficult to
present themselves an Opposition party in terms of the Westminster elections.
DIGNAN: But the Liberal Democrats
say they're independent despite joining Labour in the Scottish Executive.
They argue that since devolution the electorate has got used to parties
co-operating.
MALCOLM BRUCE MP: It's the kind of politics, frankly,
that a modern democracy must get used to and it doesn't have any bearing
on the fact that in a campaign, whether it's for a Scottish parliament
election or for the Westminster election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats
are separate, independent parties, campaigning for our own support, on
our own policies and inviting people to give us the strength to implement
them.
DIGNAN: In the next door constituency
the SNP's Alex Salmond is describing to parishioners his local connections.
SALMOND: I think Banff and Buchan
as an area is a good place - and a cheap place - to have holidays, you
know.
DIGNAN: Voters will punish the
parties in the Executive, he says, for mishandling issues such as aid to
the fishing industry. When the Parliament voted - thanks to a Liberal Democrat
back-bench rebellion - for extra financial help for the fishermen, it's
claimed ministers took no notice.
SALMOND: Scots' government ignored
a democratic vote at the Scots' parliament in fishing and Labour and the
Liberal parties turned over a democratic vote, will be a huge issue in
this general election campaign.
LIDDELL: We are in a position now
where the parliament is beginning to bed down. Yes there will be rows,
yes there will be arguments that's the nature of politics. But people recognise
we delivered one of our key pledges which was the establishment of a Scottish
parliament. And with partnership between that Scottish parliament and the
Government at Westminster, we are able to deliver a better Scotland, and
I think that's what people will focus on in the election whenever it comes.
DIGNAN: Labour MPs like Jim Murphy
swept aside all opposition in constituencies such as Eastwood at the last
election. But that was before devolution. Now Labour's leadership at Westminster
is anxious that the actions of the Scottish Executive may undermine their
MPs' chances of re-election.
MITCHELL: There have been a number
of issues in which the Executive has had problems, partly because of the
divisions between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, most recently
on the issue of fishing. And that clearly has embarrassed the Labour Party,
not just in Scotland, but across the UK. That's the kind of issue which
if it arises, in the run up to the election and during the election, would
be seriously damaging to the Labour Party. And it's quite clear that all
efforts inside the Labour Party are to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't
happen.
DIGNAN: When the election is called
all the main parties in the United Kingdom will argue over how best to
provide better public services like Health and Education. But in Scotland
the election may also expose quite serious differences over spending on
these services between the Labour-led Scottish administration here in Edinburgh
and the Labour Government in London.
When they're out meeting
voters Labour MPs may have to explain why, for example, they support university
tuition fees while Labour members of the Scottish Parliament have scrapped
them. "That's devolution," they'll reply. And they'll say that returning
Labour to Westminster will safeguard the economic policies which allow
Scotland to choose to spend more.
LIDDELL: The Scottish Executive
has to take its decisions, as any elected authority has to, based on the
budget that it has. And if it chooses to spend that budget in a different
way that's what democracy's about and that's what devolution is about.
But it shows how important it is to have a devolved settlement not divorced
from the rest of the United Kingdom because the strength of the United
Kingdom economy is allowing the Scottish Executive to pursue some very
radical policies.
DIGNAN: The Executive has also
accepted free personal care for the elderly in principle. Malcolm Bruce's
Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament can force Labour
to be more radical than the Westminster government because the Nationalists
and Conservatives will vote with them on issues like long-term care and
tuition fees. Yet the Conservatives will be fighting the General Election
to cut spending and reduce taxes.
PROFESSOR JAMES MITCHELL: The Tories in the Scottish Parliament
have been behaving like a classic Opposition party, arguing for increased
public expenditure in a whole range of matters. Now that clearly doesn't
sit very well with William Hague and his party south of the border, who
are trying to present themselves as a sort of an economically responsible
alternative party of government.
RIFKIND: It was true even before
you had devolution when the Secretary of State for Scotland - and I occupied
that post - sometimes did things differently to what was being done south
of the border. That's perhaps more likely now that you have a Scottish
Parliament, but it's got to be done on the basis of the merits of the issue
and not for some fundamental ideological or constitutional reason.
DIGNAN: Indeed, some believe the
Parliament in Edinburgh may have trouble paying for its pledges. Relying
on a grant from Westminster, the Parliament currently receives more per
head of population than England for services like health and education.
That causes resentment among MPs representing English seats. But under
the so-called Barnett Formula the gap is closing - which is something the
SNP will exploit during the election campaign.
PROFESSOR MITCHELL: One issue the SNP's been trying
to get across is the fact that Scotland's share of public expenditure is
being squeezed. It's still going up of course but relative to England the
SNP and indeed academic commentators have pointed out is being squeezed.
It's something which is quite technical but the SNP are going to have to
try and find some way of popularising this message and getting that across.
But of course again it's an issue on which all of the other parties will
try and steer well clear of.
SALMOND: The big battle for the
next Westminster parliament as far as Scotland's concerned, is going to
be Westminster attempts to starve the Scots parliament of funds. And therefore
I think it's absolutely vital there are people standing up for Scotland
in the Westminster environment and also standing up for the Scots parliament.
DIGNAN: The SNP says an independent
Scotland governed from Edinburgh wouldn't be at the mercy of decisions
made by a United Kingdom government at Westminster. The other parties may
have to tackle this issue head on, wearily perhaps because they may have
thought that the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament had ended the
debate about Scotland's constitutional status.
BRUCE: I think the SNP's problem
is they continue to claim that Scotland is richer than the rest of the
United Kingdom without, I have to say, producing any evidence that's credible,
whereas in reality I think most people in Scotland recognise that there
is great strength in being part of the United Kingdom and sharing the costs,
for example, of defence and foreign affairs and trade relations with our
partners within the Union rather than trying to have to fund the arrangement
for ourselves.
LIDDELL: They want a separate Scotland
they want to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. That's
all they've got to say in this General Election.
DIGNAN: It's argued that the creation
of this Parliament has undoubtedly strengthened the SNP and that's something
which should worry Labour because it if really is the case that the Nationalists
are now a much more formidable fighting force, they could use the General
Election as a springboard to take control of this Parliament at the next
Scottish elections in two years' time."
SALMOND: Well the impact of the
Scottish dimension to politics has been to pull up SNP support particularly
for the Scots parliament, but also for the Westminster elections and we're
very happy with that.
MITCHELL: This time round of course
the SNP has a substantial contingent of politicians in the Scottish Parliament
and they're going to be working full time in the SNP's target seats. So
in that respect the SNP's resources are far in excess of anything they've
had in the past. If the SNP does reasonably well in these elections
and their vote rises as compared with 1997 I think it's a fair assumption
that that suggests that they are likely to do pretty well in two years'
time at the Scottish general election.
DIGNAN: So when the UK election
gets underway, the arguments heard in this parliament will inevitably flow
into the campaign. UK issues won't be absent. The Conservatives will oppose
joining the Euro, Labour will emphasise its management of the British economy.
Indeed, the campaign Labour most wants to fight here is about who runs
Britain.
LIDDELL: Well at the end of this
General Election one of two men is going to walk into Ten Downing Street.
It will be either William Hague or Tony Blair and any vote for someone
other than a Labour candidate is a vote to help William Hague into Downing
Street. That's a very, very clear cut message."
DIGNAN: No matter how hard the
parties drill for the coming election, in Scotland it may not be enough.
They could be entering unfamiliar territory where the influence of a devolved
parliament is likely to scupper the old certainties about how politicians
campaign to take power.
HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair has given into
the pressure and decided there will not be elections on May the third,
that's what William Hague said he should do. So that's good news on the
face of it for the Conservatives. But, no sooner has Mr Blair ruled out
May, than the Conservatives are saying, or some of them, he should rule
out June too. So, are they just playing politics with this. John Redwood
is the Chairman of the Party's campaign unit.
Mr Redwood, Tony Blair
has done what you urged, so why aren't you applauding instead of carping?
JOHN REDWOOD: Well Mr Blair has dithered
and he has dithered at a time of national crisis. William Hague made a
very sensible and clear statement, all the time the rural economy is in
crisis, all the time the livestock industry is up against these terrible
pressures, the Prime Minister should concentrate on that. How does the
Prime Minister know that's all going to be cleared up by June the seventh.
I and my colleagues would be delighted if it's all gone by June the seventh
but it doesn't look very likely at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: So when would you call
the election?
REDWOOD: The election timing should
be settled, the General Election, once the national crisis is clearly under
control and on the way or even better when it is over. There's no need
to have a General Election until another year has gone by.
HUMPHRYS: What about the local
or council...county council elections?
REDWOOD: Well the Conservative
Party did say a long time ago that they should be deferred, at least in
the effected areas, if he wants to defer them in all areas, well will he
please get on with it so that all the council candidates know where they
stand....
HUMPHRYS: ...deferred to when?
REDWOOD: ...from the point of view
of our party interest, we would like to get on with the Local Elections.
We think we are going to win a lot of seats and we have a lot of things
we want to say to people but we don't want to go ahead in areas where it's
impossible to campaign fairly and sensibly and if the government comes
forward with a decent proposal for delay across the country, well then
we will look at that and may even support it. But we haven't finally decided
what would be the best form for the Local Elections, we want to see what
the government's proposals are.
HUMPHRYS: But when you said defer,
a decent time and all that, until when?
REDWOOD: Well I think we need to
look at the state of the crisis and how quickly the government thinks it
can get on top of it. It's up to the government to tell us, honestly, how
bad the crisis now is, we don't feel we have been getting the whole truth
out of them. They need to explain why they have been so slow in handling
this twin rural crisis, not just the crisis in the livestock industry,
but the crisis of no visitors going to many parts of the countryside at
all and nearly bankrupting a lot of other businesses. How long they think
it's going to take them to get on top of that and then we can come to a
sensible judgement on when and how elections can be fought.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so you're not
saying no elections so long as there's a single case of foot-and-mouth
in any English county.
REDWOOD: No we're not saying that.
We're saying the thing needs to be under visible control and we need to
know that the crisis is well on the way to being resolved.
HUMPHRYS: But you would have to
put forward, well you say you can't put forward a date because nobody can
do that. I mean what Tony Blair has to do, presumably, when he finally
tells us himself, he has to put forward a date doesn't he?
REDWOOD: Well I think he does on
the Local Elections yes and that is the Prime Minister's job. He is in
possession of all the information, we don't have all the information about
the state of the crisis...
HUMPHRYS: Well we know what's happening...
REDWOOD: ..or how quickly he's
going to get on top of it. We fear that he's not getting on top of it quickly
enough. The Conservative Party has been demanding stronger and quicker
action throughout this crisis and belatedly, a week or two later, the government
picks up some of our ideas and tries to do them, often too late for them
to be successful and I hope we don't stay in that position for much longer.
I hope now that Mr Blair has partly made up his mind on the election, he
can now put his effort in, day by day, to trying to combat these twin rural
crises because he is facing the possibility of bankruptcy of a very large
number of rural businesses and it's no good having Michael Meacher on the
telly waving a couple of wellington boots around thinking they've done
the job if the foot baths are closed, if a lot of the visitor attractions
are closed, if all the animal attractions are closed, if there are funeral
pyres burning in the fields it will be Labour's cruel spring. It will be
the spring of discontent and no amount of spinning is going to change that.
HUMPHRYS: So, given that you have,
as you say, offered advice in the past and given that we do know what's
going on out there pretty much anyway and we can talk to the Chief Vet
and all the rest of it, just as anybody else can, you must have some idea
of a date for the County Council elections?
REDWOOD: Well, we would say that
in the affected areas that they have to be delayed until you have a clearer
idea of where the crisis is going and the essential thing is to get a grip
because this awful poisoned Spring is causing so much damage and it's probably
to going to trigger difficulties for the economy as a whole. If a lot
of rural businesses get into serious trouble and it looks as if they are
going to, on top of a Stock Market crash, on top of a telecoms crash,
partly created by Brown over-taxing the telecoms companies, it doesn't
make a very pretty picture and you may have seen that people's optimism
about the economic prospects has taken a plunge in the last few days and
I'm not surprised. It needs the whole-hearted concentration of the government
to try and tackle these problems, some of which they have created.
HUMPHRYS: But given that we can't
until things sort themselves out, hold elections in those two crucial counties,
in Cumbria and Devon, what about County Council elections, a date for them
in the rest of England. I mean, you must be able to give us some idea
of when you think they ought to be?
REDWOOD: Well I don't know what
my colleagues are going to agree. There are several options...
HUMPHRYS: What do you think?
REDWOOD: You could say that there
should be County elections in the rest of England quite soon...
HUMPHRYS: June the seventh for
instance?
REDWOOD: ...and leave out the two
or three counties that are very badly affected and put in a different date
for them, or you could say that we should wait until the government is
confident that the crisis is on the wane and then settle the date for the
whole country. I would like to see what my colleagues agree, William Hague
hasn't yet pronounced on this and I'd like to see what the government's
proposals are. But we need some certainty in this and it should be the
government that is offering the lead in this because they are trying to
handle the crisis. I mean how many more sheep and cows are they going
to kill before they say that they need to use vaccination as well? And
are they going to allow all the farmers, in areas which don't yet have
the disease, to move some of their animals because the animal welfare problems
in some of those fields are appalling. There are sheep now in fields that
are flooded or with no grass, they're not allowed to move them and so they
have terrible welfare problems and I think it is high time the government
recognised that.
HUMPHRYS: Do you think we should
start vaccinating now then? I mean, tomorrow, immediately?
REDWOOD: Well, I think vaccination
should be an option for farmers. I don't know why they've dithered for
so long over that. Everything about this crisis, they've done too little,
too late. They've now said that vaccines are available, we're told there
is a row going on between the Prime Minister, who is meant to want vaccination,
and MAFF that doesn't want vaccination and meanwhile there are people with
rare breeds, flocks they've built up over many years and they cannot protect
them properly and they are desperate about it.
HUMPHRYS: Just a very quick thought.
Haven't you rather shot yourselves in the foot politically. May the third
might have been rather good for you. The longer it goes on now, the worse
it might get for you, once the problem is sorted, people might say, well
fine, let's go out and vote for the government.
REDWOOD: Well look some of us are
more worried about sorting out this dreadful national crisis. I don't
know what the political effects would have been of going against that background,
but what I do know is that we have a rural industry in collapse and people
being horrified by the scenes of the funeral pyres and the mounting carcasses
and the incompetence and the bumbledom in handling it all and let's get
a grip on that and try and sort our country out. The transport doesn't
work, the schools don't work, the hospitals don't work and now the countryside
itself is in carnage.
HUMPHRYS: John Redwood, thank you
very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Fewer of us vote in elections
these days whenever they are held than ever before. The enemy for all
politicians, for democracy you could say is apathy. So how can governments
persuade us to vote when so many of us simply can't be bothered, either
because we're disillusioned with the whole process or because we're happy
with the way things are? The government has been considering proposals
that would offer voters what amounts to a reward for turning out on polling
day. But is one voter's incentive another one's bribe? David Grossman
has been investigating.
DAVID GROSSMAN: Britain's changed a lot since the
dress code at polling stations was Sunday coat, best hat and medals.
VOICE OVER: "Polling was exceptionally
heavy in all districts. Well over eighty per cent of the electorate voted."
GROSSMAN: In nineteen-ninety-seven
turnout was down to seventy per cent.
VOICE OVER: "Even centenarians exercised
their democratic right."
GROSSMAN: And at one recent by-election
fewer than one in five voters managed to give the tellers anything to do.
Some at Westminster warn of a crisis in democracy.
Politicians are so eager to get into this place they can't really understand
why so many of their compatriots can't even be bothered to vote. Some countries,
like Australia, have compulsory voting. But here that's frowned on as being
ever so slightly un-British. Voting is, after all, an expression of freedom,
so forcing people to vote is somewhat contradictory and also potentially
very unpopular. Instead the government is looking at ways of rewarding
voters with inducements, in the jargon, positive reinforcement. But to
critics the idea is nothing less than bribery.
NIGEL EVANS MP: This is not the way. We've
got to encourage people to go and vote in elections, particularly at the
general election when you're electing members of parliament to the mother
of parliaments, and we don't want to turn the general election into some
glorified car boot sale where the government will be handing out gifts
as a favour for the fact that you've gone to vote.
GROSSMAN: The idea of rewarding
voting has come from a report by a committee of Foreign Office mandarins.
They were worried that Britain's reputation abroad and its ability to espouse
democracy was being compromised by low turn out. British diplomats were
warning their bosses in London that the UK was in danger of becoming ridiculous
in the eyes of overseas governments.
The Foreign Office Oversight and Liaison Sub-committee began work on a
series of far-reaching and potentially very controversial proposals. They
looked at using cash payments, gifts and even the lottery in an effort
to get more people voting.
Their hush-hush report coincided with the noisy bidding process for the
lottery franchise. Minister told the frontrunner, Sir Richard Branson,
that, if successful, he would be expected to give out free lottery tickets
to voters - perhaps even as part of the ballot paper.
SIR RICHARD BRANSON: The government made it clear
to us that if we won it they wanted to make sure that we participated with
them in using lottery tickets to encourage people to vote. In one sense
I thought it was quite a fun idea, but it just, when you really examine
it, I think it actually has rather serious implications about democracy
and the way people vote and the freedom to go and vote and the reasons
for voting.
GROSSMAN: And what happened?
BRANSON: Ah well as you know we
didn't win the lottery, so we passed it over to Camelot and obviously
it will be they who will be handing out these lottery tickets.
GROSSMAN; But is there anything
wrong with the idea? Victorian bribery laws ban gifts from parties but
some experts say a voters' lottery would be okay.
DR DAVID BUTLER: I think the lottery principle
is quite reasonable and say, if you vote, you have got a chance of winning
a prize, that is not going to subvert an individual voter to vote in a
particular way. The bribes in the old days were to get you to vote in
a specific way. This time it's just to get you, the proposition is just
to get you to vote. That is much less objectionable.
LEMBIT OPIK MP: I have got huge worries
about this lottery ticket idea. Apart from the fact that you're more likely
to be hit by an asteroid than to have the winning ticket, I'm worried that
people will be more concerned about who wins the lottery than who wins
the election.
GROSSMAN: The government's also
pursuing other ideas. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee,
Robin Corbett, has been asked to examine a range of voter inducements such
as gifts and cash. He thinks the idea makes economic sense.
ROBIN CORBETT MP: That's the attraction of this
because it costs the government nothing to do. You're giving people their
own money back - while it looks generous on the one hand, it's not as if
we have to open our wallets or the government has to open its wallet and
put real money on the table. You're just recirculating what they've paid
already, so, I suppose if you wanted to, you could get it back. You get
the election out of the way and the next two budgets you could put a penny
on income tax and get it back if it's cost you too much, so it's quite
neat that.
GROSSMAN: So what sort of gifts
would work - would any of this lot wow the voters into turning up? Any
of these, do you think, would help people to get out to vote, as a gift?
UNNAMED WOMAN: No.
UNNAMED WOMAN: The pineapple
GROSSMAN: What about cash?
UNNAMED WOMAN: Uh.
GROSSMAN: You like the booze?
UNNAMED MAN: Yes, oh yes, well.
UNNAMED WOMAN: No, I don't think so.
GROSSMAN: Nothing?
UNNAMED WOMAN: Chocolates would possibly work,
yes.
UNNAMED WOMAN: No, I have no faith in anybody,
I'm afraid.
GROSSMAN: Bubble bath?
UNNAMED PERSON: Laughs
GROSSMAN: A hundred pounds?
UNNAMED WOMAN: No, I'm a real cynic.
UNNAMED MAN: Yes, I'll take cash
GROSSMAN: A thousand pounds?
UNNAMED WOMAN: The cans of beer might.
GROSSMAN: Ten-thousand?
But most reluctant voters probably do have a price. On the Record has
commissioned some polling research to find out what it could cost. With
ten pounds on offer eighty-three per cent of voters would turn out. If
offered twenty pounds, ninety-one per cent would trip willingly into the
polling stations. And fifty pounds would actually lead to a turn out of
one-hundred-and-twelve per cent - clearly leading to concern about multiple
voting.
EVANS: That could be open to so
much abuse, and I think what you might find is that if the cash sum is
large enough, that you will find people registering in all sorts of seats
around the country and voting on polling day all over the country just
to get the money in. It will be one big cash bonanza for some people who
will try and work the system to their own benefit.
GROSSMAN: The idea is also not
very popular with the Treasury. Giving each voter fifty pounds would cost
the Exchequer over two-billion. True, Gordon Brown could put up taxes,
but that would hardly incline all those hard won extra voters to vote Labour.
Instead the government wants to harness the power of the private sector.
In return for cash or products, private companies would be offered discreet
and sensitive advertising at polling stations, or even on the ballot paper.
GROSSMAN: On the Record has obtained
three sample ballot papers which were designed by a prominent ad agency
for government consideration. Two were given tentative approval. A third
was completely ruled out.
The choice of gifts is obviously vital - some Tories detect Labour seeking
out electoral advantage with the products that are used to tempt voters.
EVANS: This will be in the hands
of the government and if they decide they want a higher turnout in certain
seats, where they think it's marginal and they want their majorities either
higher or indeed even to gain a seat, you could find that the gift is going
to be very attractive to one group of people. Whereas in other seats where
they really don't want a high turnout at all and they would far prefer
people to stay at home, then you might find that the gift is not worth
having - or indeed they, in some certain seats, they won't give a gift
at all. And that's got to be unfair.
GROSSMAN: But the government is
trying to win all-party support for the idea by canvassing backbench opinion.
OPIK: I was phoned up by
a civil servant from the Home Office, who said, if they were going to dole
out voters' gifts, would I prefer a box of chocolates or a bottle of sherry?
GROSSMAN: And what did you think?
OPIK: I said the chocolates,
definitely. I'm not very fond of sherry.
GROSSMAN: But what do you think
of the idea, do you object to the concept?
OPIK: I've no objection
to the concept of sherry, it's the taste I don't like.
GROSSMAN: We live in an increasingly
busy and commercial age and voting can seem a bit dull by comparison.
Low turnout is a problem for democracies the world over. But is bribery
really the answer?
CORBETT: This one we thought, dry
sherry, for the older voter.
GROSSMAN: The Chairman of the Commons
Home Affairs Select Committee is very keen on incentives to vote.
CORBETT: CDs
GROSSMAN: He showed me a box full
of suitable items. The key, he believes, is to make sure it's all done
tastefully.
CORBETT: While members of all parties
felt this was very worthwhile to look at all these imaginative ways of
getting people to exercise their vote, we had some doubts. What we didn't
want to do was to make this look a complete joke.
HUMPHRYS: David Grossman was reporting
there. And that's it from On the Record on April the First. Don't forget
our Web-site if you're on the Internet. Until next Sunday at the same
time, Good Afternoon.
4
FoLdEd
|