:00:00. > :00:00.The SNP warn they'll vote against the Investigatory Powers Bill.
:00:07. > :00:09.They say the UK Government's failed to make the case for such
:00:10. > :00:34.As MPs debate new powers of mass surveillance,
:00:35. > :00:38.the Government suggests it is willing to make concessions.
:00:39. > :00:40.Should the Scottish Government reconsider its moratorium
:00:41. > :00:48.And with a fortnight to go, is it riskier to Leave or to Remain?
:00:49. > :01:00.The Investigatory Powers Bill sets out wide-ranging new powers
:01:01. > :01:04.for the police and security services to view your internet browsing
:01:05. > :01:08.histories, e-mails and other communications data.
:01:09. > :01:09.Whether those powers are too wide-ranging
:01:10. > :01:13.is currently being hotly debated in the House of Commons.
:01:14. > :01:15.Tonight and tomorrow, MPs will have their final chance
:01:16. > :01:20.to amend the bill before it goes to the Lords.
:01:21. > :01:22.With deep concerns being expressed from opposition parties
:01:23. > :01:25.and Tory backbenchers alike, there's no guarantee
:01:26. > :01:31.that the bill will be passed, as Andrew Black reports.
:01:32. > :01:34.Right now, our security services are telling us that the likelihood
:01:35. > :01:40.of an attack by international terrorists on the UK is high.
:01:41. > :01:44.And Britain isn't the only country dealing with this kind of threat.
:01:45. > :01:46.Today, Ukrainian officials said a Frenchman who was detained last
:01:47. > :01:50.month with a large stockpile of arms was planning mass attacks
:01:51. > :01:53.during the Euro 2016 football tournament,
:01:54. > :01:59.Here in Britain, the UK Government has proposed new spying laws
:02:00. > :02:04.which it says will combat the threat of terrorism online.
:02:05. > :02:06.The Investigatory Powers Bill will force internet service
:02:07. > :02:10.providers to store browsing records for 12 months.
:02:11. > :02:13.It would also give legal backing to bulk collection
:02:14. > :02:19.And police would get new powers to hack into computers and
:02:20. > :02:25.But, these plans have come in for a lot of criticism
:02:26. > :02:28.including that they amount to a Snoopers' Charter.
:02:29. > :02:30.As they were debated in the Commons today,
:02:31. > :02:34.UK ministers say they've responded to those concerns by
:02:35. > :02:38.providing extra safeguards to protect people's privacy.
:02:39. > :02:40.But opposition parties, and some Conservative backbenchers,
:02:41. > :02:53.The issues of privacy and oversight are central to our considerations
:02:54. > :03:01.and the Government is determined to ensure the bill reflects, but
:03:02. > :03:10.concentration on those matters. We are clear that in considering and
:03:11. > :03:14.passing this bill, we must do more, more in respect of checks and
:03:15. > :03:22.balances, more in respect of safeguards and more in respect of
:03:23. > :03:25.oversight. The security and intelligence services must powers
:03:26. > :03:32.available to them to deal with those threats. But human rights matter as
:03:33. > :03:35.well. I conclude with that the right to privacy, the right to be left
:03:36. > :03:42.alone, the right to have private data protected with security and
:03:43. > :03:46.integrity, and the right to redress when things go wrong. We remain
:03:47. > :03:52.concerned about the galaxy of some of the powers that are still on the
:03:53. > :03:55.face of this bill and the fact that they significantly exceed what is
:03:56. > :03:58.authorised in other western democracies. For example, the
:03:59. > :04:03.retention of internet connection wreckers. -- records.
:04:04. > :04:06.One of the key challenges in this bill is balancing
:04:07. > :04:08.for privacy with giving law enforcement agencies
:04:09. > :04:12.what they need to do the job, but there is a concern that what's
:04:13. > :04:14.currently being proposed goes far beyond the measures that other
:04:15. > :04:22.I don't think you will find many people who would say that the
:04:23. > :04:28.Government or the police or security agencies should have no powers to
:04:29. > :04:31.monitor people's activity where they suspect wrongdoing, serious
:04:32. > :04:35.wrongdoing, where a case of terrorism, for example. But we are
:04:36. > :04:41.talking about the bulk, mass surveillance of everyone
:04:42. > :04:44.indiscriminately, where there is no suspicion on millions of people in
:04:45. > :04:46.the country but they are still under surveillance.
:04:47. > :04:48.The Investigatory Powers Bill faces a second day of detailed scrutiny
:04:49. > :04:52.in the Commons tomorrow and further challenges for the UK Government.
:04:53. > :04:54.With Conservative MPs among the critics, ministers may well have
:04:55. > :04:56.to make further concessions to opposition parties if they want
:04:57. > :05:06.In our Westminster studio is the SNP MP Joanna Cherry,
:05:07. > :05:10.their Justice Home Affairs spokesperson.
:05:11. > :05:13.We also asked for someone from the Conservative Party
:05:14. > :05:15.to join this discussion, but unfortunately
:05:16. > :05:21.no-one was available to come on this evening.
:05:22. > :05:28.Good evening, Joanna Cherry. You are saying the SNP MPs will not support
:05:29. > :05:35.this bill at its third reading in Parliament tomorrow, why not? Well,
:05:36. > :05:38.the SNP supports the idea that law enforcement and the security
:05:39. > :05:42.services should have necessary and proportionate powers to fight
:05:43. > :05:45.serious crime and terrorism. But we also believe those have to be
:05:46. > :05:51.balanced with Civil Liberties, in particular the right to privacy, and
:05:52. > :05:55.also people's writes to data security. We simply don't believe
:05:56. > :05:58.that this bill has got the balance right. But the Government is
:05:59. > :06:04.offering extra safeguards on privacy. Is that not enough? No, the
:06:05. > :06:07.Government has offered an overarching privacy clause, which
:06:08. > :06:11.both the SNP and Labour had asked them to put into the bill. But there
:06:12. > :06:16.are numerous other asks which the SNP has demanded which have not been
:06:17. > :06:22.answered. And these are asks in order to make the bill in accordance
:06:23. > :06:25.with European law and -- under the jurisprudence of the European Court
:06:26. > :06:28.of Human Rights and to bring us into line with what is done in other
:06:29. > :06:31.countries. There are aspects of the spell which the SNP would like to
:06:32. > :06:36.support because they reflect powers that are already in force but it is
:06:37. > :06:42.the new powers in the bill that concern us, the powers to scoop up
:06:43. > :06:46.everyone's internet connection wreckers, the bulk surveillance
:06:47. > :06:49.powers, powers to scoop up everybody's medical records in bulk
:06:50. > :06:53.for the security services to go through. We believe that
:06:54. > :06:56.surveillance should be targeting and based on suspicion and it should not
:06:57. > :07:01.be based on some sort of Dragnet approach, which is what the
:07:02. > :07:05.Government are trying to do. Do you reject completely the case for
:07:06. > :07:11.reviewing the operational case for the bulk powers that are in the
:07:12. > :07:15.bill? I was on the bill committee and I explained in detail about the
:07:16. > :07:18.Government's current operational case, being inadequate unless the
:07:19. > :07:23.SNP wanted bulk powers removed from the bill because there was no
:07:24. > :07:26.adequate operational casemate. The Government have accepted their
:07:27. > :07:30.operational case is inadequate and said they will put it to independent
:07:31. > :07:34.review. But it was only this afternoon during debate that they
:07:35. > :07:38.told us exactly what they were proposing by way of an independent
:07:39. > :07:43.review. I'm not still entirely clear as to what the remit of that review
:07:44. > :07:46.will be. I would like the independent review to look at the
:07:47. > :07:51.experience in the USA, where there has been very much a move against
:07:52. > :07:56.bulk powers, both as being overly intrusive but perhaps more
:07:57. > :07:58.importantly, ineffective. It is a difficult balance to design
:07:59. > :08:04.legislation that protects privacy and also keeps the public safe. Do
:08:05. > :08:10.you accept that such a bill is absolutely necessary? I have already
:08:11. > :08:13.said the SNP believe that the law enforcement and security services
:08:14. > :08:15.should have necessary and proportionate powers, but those
:08:16. > :08:21.powers have to be in accordance with the law and have to recognise the
:08:22. > :08:25.right of the citizen to privacy and the necessity to keep data secure.
:08:26. > :08:33.There are legitimate fears that these powers go ahead, the security
:08:34. > :08:36.of all our personal data will be compromised because if the good guys
:08:37. > :08:40.are able to hack into our computers and hack into our data security
:08:41. > :08:43.systems, that weakens them so the bad guys can get in after the
:08:44. > :08:48.Government and that is a concern which has been expressed widely by
:08:49. > :08:53.companies in the technical sector and also by communications service
:08:54. > :08:55.providers. We have another day of scrutiny tomorrow, another chance
:08:56. > :09:00.for more concessions from the Government. Are you simply upping
:09:01. > :09:04.the ante here, or are you serious that you will vote against it? We
:09:05. > :09:14.are serious about voting against it. I see no prospect of the Government
:09:15. > :09:17.giving into our key asked. -- are key asked. I have not had the
:09:18. > :09:21.courtesy of a reply from the Government but it is quite clear,
:09:22. > :09:25.given the limited time that we have today and tomorrow to debate the
:09:26. > :09:29.bill that we will only be able to put a handful of our amendments to a
:09:30. > :09:33.vote. There seems to be an attitude on the Labour benches that this
:09:34. > :09:38.considered be left to the House of Lords. But what the SNP think is
:09:39. > :09:41.that it is the democratically elected House of Commons who should
:09:42. > :09:44.sort this out. The House of Lords is not accountable to the public.
:09:45. > :09:48.Wagyu, Joanna Cherry. -- thank you. It's almost a year since
:09:49. > :09:50.the Scottish Government announced a moratorium on genetically modified
:09:51. > :09:53.crops being grown in Scotland. The move widened a policy divide
:09:54. > :09:55.on the issue with the Conservative
:09:56. > :09:58.Government in London. But was it a decision
:09:59. > :10:01.based on good science? Last month, a US study found no
:10:02. > :10:04.evidence of risks to human health Well, earlier this was all under
:10:05. > :10:12.the spotlight at an event organised I'm joined now by co-author
:10:13. > :10:18.of their report on GM foods, Professor Jim Dunwell,
:10:19. > :10:35.and from Salford by Liz O'Neill Welcome to both of you. Professor
:10:36. > :10:41.Dunwell, the question tonight was, should GM be on the table? Should
:10:42. > :10:44.it? I think it should and I think the great majority of people who
:10:45. > :10:49.came to the meeting this evening or of that opinion, probably out of the
:10:50. > :10:57.100 people -- 100 or so people who attended, but 10% disagreed and 90%
:10:58. > :11:02.agreed. Liz, you are not convinced, why not? Liver-mac I was certainly
:11:03. > :11:11.not going to be convinced at that event. Our campaign is the umbrella
:11:12. > :11:18.campaign for a campaign against GM crops. The reason we do not want GM
:11:19. > :11:22.crops or GM food is because we want everyone's food to be produced
:11:23. > :11:26.responsibly, fairly unsustainably. The GM we have at the moment does
:11:27. > :11:32.not work towards these values. It works against them. What about the
:11:33. > :11:37.actual science? Is any scientific evidence that it is as harmful?
:11:38. > :11:39.Bigger-mac there is scientific evidence that there are harm is
:11:40. > :11:44.being done by the GM crops that currently exist. They may not be
:11:45. > :11:50.specifically to do with the actual process of GM. The only GM crops
:11:51. > :11:55.that successfully grow are causing what the National academies of
:11:56. > :12:00.science report itself referred to as major agricultural problems. Some
:12:01. > :12:05.really unbalanced reporting of this, this American report, but they have
:12:06. > :12:10.got some serious agricultural problems but somehow that is not
:12:11. > :12:15.making it into the UK press. Professor Dunwell, what about these
:12:16. > :12:21.severe problems? Think that is a gross exaggeration. Looking at the
:12:22. > :12:28.consensus view that has come out of many decades of growing GM crops,
:12:29. > :12:32.there are a few examples of the disadvantages in terms of herbicide
:12:33. > :12:35.resistant weeds, but that is nothing to do with the characteristics of
:12:36. > :12:43.the GM crop itself, it is something to do with the methods used by those
:12:44. > :12:46.farmers. It has been a commercial success, it has been a great
:12:47. > :12:51.economic success. It herself people not just in the developed world but
:12:52. > :12:57.also, if you go to parts of Asia, where GM crops are being grown, it
:12:58. > :13:00.has been a life-saver for the economy of some of those countries.
:13:01. > :13:03.In terms of the Scottish view of this, it is only right that farmers
:13:04. > :13:07.in Scotland and the rest of the UK should be given the opportunity to
:13:08. > :13:12.at least test some of these things. It is not to say that GM crops are
:13:13. > :13:15.the only answer, but to disregard them and say they have no place in
:13:16. > :13:24.the future of agriculture I think is a mistake. Liz, you were shaking
:13:25. > :13:27.their heads. The phrase major agricultural problems was from the
:13:28. > :13:31.National academies of science, the very report the Royal Society is
:13:32. > :13:35.trumpeting everywhere. I am not exaggerating anything. The only GM
:13:36. > :13:42.crops that are currently being grown are those herbicide tolerant
:13:43. > :13:46.crops... That is not quite true. The only crops being grown at any skill
:13:47. > :13:49.have one or both of those characteristics and both have been
:13:50. > :13:52.implicated in serious problems. Yes, it is the trait that is the problem,
:13:53. > :14:17.that is what GM currently is. It is the great that causes the
:14:18. > :14:23.problem -- trait. What you're seeing is disingenuous and not scientific.
:14:24. > :14:30.I do not think it is scientific to disregard evidence. Most scientists
:14:31. > :14:35.rely upon evidence. The evidence says if these crops are regulated
:14:36. > :14:40.securely and safely, which they are, then there is no proven evidence to
:14:41. > :14:43.human health or the environment. There may maybe theoretical economic
:14:44. > :14:50.disadvantages to be taken into account but we will only get to the
:14:51. > :14:55.answer if we allow farmers or experimenters to do more trials.
:14:56. > :14:59.Without the trials we will not get to the position of having evidence
:15:00. > :15:04.so I would rather rely upon evidence rather than speculate about
:15:05. > :15:10.theoretical risk. Do you think of a moratorium on growing GM crops is
:15:11. > :15:15.wrong? I think it is wrong to prejudge the issue. I'm not saying
:15:16. > :15:19.that GM crops will be grown on a large scale but if farmers do not
:15:20. > :15:22.have a chance to see the evidence in the field then in the future of the
:15:23. > :15:26.agricultural productivity can be threatened. We should give people
:15:27. > :15:32.the opportunity to use benefits and draw conclusions. It is one of many
:15:33. > :15:40.breeding methods and I think it is a mistake to disregard that potential.
:15:41. > :15:44.Why not? The report we keep referring to does say there is no
:15:45. > :15:51.substantiated evidence of risks to human health or the environment. We
:15:52. > :15:56.have given it a try. We had the biggest trial of GM crops that has
:15:57. > :16:03.ever happened was done in the UK and the government concluded it did not
:16:04. > :16:05.want to grow them. There is also nothing stopping Scottish trials of
:16:06. > :16:10.GM crops under controlled conditions. This is about commercial
:16:11. > :16:19.growing, a completely different issue. I would like to pick up on
:16:20. > :16:28.the constant use of the science. There are many reasons to object to
:16:29. > :16:36.GM crops. Patenting is one. These are sidelined in discussions. There
:16:37. > :16:41.is a lot to be concerned about. Regulation should be based on
:16:42. > :16:44.scientific principles which are quantifiable and then it is for the
:16:45. > :16:50.public to say whether they buy these products. Once GM food is in the
:16:51. > :16:58.chain, consumers to not have a choice in the end. So it is not just
:16:59. > :17:05.about science. There are products in the UK already with GM ingredients,
:17:06. > :17:12.and consumers by those. They are imported at the moment. It is also
:17:13. > :17:16.extremely difficult to buy animal products that have not come from
:17:17. > :17:21.animals that were fed GM crops because that does not appear on the
:17:22. > :17:32.label and that is where the vast majority of GM crops go to. Where it
:17:33. > :17:38.is labelled as an ingredient, there are a few on sale. Where it is not
:17:39. > :17:40.labelled, it has become so commonplace that supermarkets are
:17:41. > :17:48.telling us they cannot get hold of enough GM free feed. This idea that
:17:49. > :17:59.choice can be retained once it is in the food chain is a fallacy. There
:18:00. > :18:04.is no evidence that eating animal products, eggs, milk, meat, that
:18:05. > :18:10.comes from imported soya beans has any effect on human health. Is that
:18:11. > :18:15.the only reason I am allowed to object to something? Because it
:18:16. > :18:23.might kill me? It might not kill you. It is the emotive nature of
:18:24. > :18:27.comments such as that. You seem to be implying that the only reason I
:18:28. > :18:32.am allowed to object to it as if I think it will kill me. I don't think
:18:33. > :18:41.it will kill me, I think it is against my effect 's. We -- ethics.
:18:42. > :18:43.We will have to leave it there. Just over two weeks to go
:18:44. > :18:45.until the referendum and just two topics of conversation
:18:46. > :18:47.on the campaign trail. But one theme both campaigns
:18:48. > :18:53.are running with is risk. Just before we came on air,
:18:54. > :18:56.I spoke to our political correspondent, Nick Eardely,
:18:57. > :18:58.who is in Strasbourg So, Boris Johnson talking today
:18:59. > :19:05.about the risk of remaining. It's the Remain campaign that's
:19:06. > :19:08.so far been associated with this kind of strategy,
:19:09. > :19:22.isn't it, Nick? It has been a central pillar of the
:19:23. > :19:27.Remain campaign so far but I think what Boris Johnson wanted to do
:19:28. > :19:32.today was emphasise he thinks there are risks to staying in the EU which
:19:33. > :19:41.outweighed the risks of leaving. The central crux of this argument is
:19:42. > :19:46.immigration. Vote.Leave and Boris Johnson think immigration will be
:19:47. > :19:51.key. He said the biggest challenge the UK faces in the coming years is
:19:52. > :20:04.an increased population fuelled by immigration. But leave macro -- vote
:20:05. > :20:09.to leave ... Here is Boris Johnson talking earlier.
:20:10. > :20:15.In a controlled system they would be able to keep their promises to the
:20:16. > :20:19.electric and it is no good time after time for everybody standing up
:20:20. > :20:21.saying we will get immigration down to the tens of thousands when they
:20:22. > :20:23.simply do not the tools to do it. So is the Remain campaign avoiding
:20:24. > :20:34.the immigration question completely? I think they would argue they are
:20:35. > :20:39.not avoiding it completely. David Cameron said last week that his
:20:40. > :20:43.government had not achieved what it wanted on immigration and that he
:20:44. > :20:46.didn't think there was a simple answer like leaving the EU to
:20:47. > :20:54.solving it. The issue he wants to talk about is the economy. He was
:20:55. > :20:58.back on that subject today, joined by Harriet Harman of labour, Tim
:20:59. > :21:03.Farren of the Lib Dems and Natalie Bennett of the Greens. In some ways
:21:04. > :21:08.that was reminiscent of the independence campaign. Different
:21:09. > :21:12.parties putting their differences aside and arguing that on this issue
:21:13. > :21:17.there is more that unites us than divides us. For Harriet Harman,
:21:18. > :21:21.workers' rights. For Natalie Bennett, environmental protection.
:21:22. > :21:26.The Prime Minister wanted to return to the central plank of economic
:21:27. > :21:30.uncertainty he believes would come from leaving the EU.
:21:31. > :21:40.Add those things together, the shock, uncertainty, trade impact,
:21:41. > :21:41.you put a bomb under our economy. And we would have lit the fuse
:21:42. > :21:49.ourselves. The economy and migration are some
:21:50. > :22:00.issues which will be discussed here in Strasbourg with the parliament
:22:01. > :22:04.meets. We will be discussing with MEPs what they think the future
:22:05. > :22:07.holds be it in or out of the EU. Here to discuss that and some more
:22:08. > :22:10.of today's news is Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Social Policy
:22:11. > :22:12.at the University of Stirling, and Stewart Paterson,
:22:13. > :22:26.political correspondent It is good to see you both. Sticking
:22:27. > :22:32.with the EU debate at the moment, what do you think of Boris Johnson's
:22:33. > :22:36.strategy? I think he has pursued a strategy whereby people are supposed
:22:37. > :22:42.to trust his charisma and his view of things. I think both sides have
:22:43. > :22:46.been using evidence in a useful analogy of how not to use evidence
:22:47. > :22:52.from an academic perspective because they have been very picky about what
:22:53. > :22:56.kind of evidence they use but I think he has nailed his colours to
:22:57. > :23:02.the mast and tried to persuade people to trust his version of
:23:03. > :23:06.events. This particular slant today, talking about the risks of
:23:07. > :23:12.remaining, will that play well with voters? That's what they have to do,
:23:13. > :23:17.focus on the arguments of the other side and not just their own. We saw
:23:18. > :23:22.that in the Scottish referendum and we are seeing the same tactics,
:23:23. > :23:29.politicians being selective with the facts. I suppose with so-called
:23:30. > :23:36.project here it was all about the risks of leaving during the Scottish
:23:37. > :23:45.independence referendum. Is it clever to turn it on its head, the
:23:46. > :23:48.risk of staying? The propensity of older voters is to guide the EU,
:23:49. > :23:59.which is interesting, because they tend to be more conservative and
:24:00. > :24:03.more into the status quo. Boris is plain that cleverly because he is
:24:04. > :24:07.speaking to the core constituency of voters who are likely to want to
:24:08. > :24:13.leave the EU by appealing to their fears about risk. We keep hearing
:24:14. > :24:17.that the voters want more facts, does that mean they want more
:24:18. > :24:24.certainty? They want more information. If they look to either
:24:25. > :24:27.side of the campaign, Boris Johnson are David Cameron, they are looking
:24:28. > :24:31.in the wrong place for facts because they will get the facts according to
:24:32. > :24:38.either side of the campaign. The big one for the Leave campaign is that
:24:39. > :24:48.we sent ?350 million to Brussels. It is true to an extent but some comes
:24:49. > :24:56.back. And on the other side, 400,000 jobs lost in the service sector. But
:24:57. > :25:01.that is based on one forecast from one economic model and it is whether
:25:02. > :25:06.you believe that model or forecast. I think it is about how people trust
:25:07. > :25:08.the personalities involved rather than their interpretation of the
:25:09. > :25:09.data. A new report from the Bank
:25:10. > :25:12.of Scotland says nearly a third of the UK's oil and gas firms plan
:25:13. > :25:15.to cut more jobs this year, with the slump in the price of oil
:25:16. > :25:25.continuing longer than expected. The stabilisation of the oil price
:25:26. > :25:32.and the cuts already taken and further efficiency gains sought, we
:25:33. > :25:36.should hopefully see that turnaround and more investment decisions coming
:25:37. > :25:41.back and hopefully present an industry much more resilient going
:25:42. > :25:44.forward. When they talk about efficiencies and a more resilient
:25:45. > :25:52.industry, further human side of things, the workers, that can often
:25:53. > :25:59.mean more casual jobs, a more challenging place to work.
:26:00. > :26:05.Efficiencies means job cuts more often than not, lower wages, the
:26:06. > :26:09.same in the oil and gas industry. It affects other people as well, not
:26:10. > :26:13.just oil and gas industry, but people who are affected by that, and
:26:14. > :26:21.it can take longer for that to come back. If there is an upturn then we
:26:22. > :26:29.will have to wait longer for the economy, the wider economy to pick
:26:30. > :26:33.up. A lot of bad news for people directly employed in the industry
:26:34. > :26:39.but other companies in the supply chain as well. And it shows the
:26:40. > :26:44.danger of having an economy focused on one key sector, which has always
:26:45. > :26:50.been an issue not just for the Scottish economy but UK wide. To
:26:51. > :26:55.continue to rely on oil and gas, fossil fuels, is diverting attention
:26:56. > :26:58.from where the long-term planning and environmental and energy
:26:59. > :27:03.planning should be, unsustainable growth in other sectors. It would be
:27:04. > :27:09.interesting to see whether this is an opportunity to invest in more
:27:10. > :27:14.sustainable environmental energy. I would suspect not because the
:27:15. > :27:17.returns would be seen so long-term that it would not be in the policy
:27:18. > :27:26.interest of one particular government. We haven't today it was
:27:27. > :27:34.said it was ridiculous the Scottish Government would ban shale gas
:27:35. > :27:44.exploration. We had the vote last week where the SNP MSPs abstained
:27:45. > :27:49.from the vote to ban fracking. Whatever they decide, they have the
:27:50. > :27:53.majority in parliament to do it. If the decide to extend the moratorium
:27:54. > :28:00.into a ban, they can do that. Or if the wants to allow it. But also the
:28:01. > :28:02.party membership wants to see fracking banned completely.
:28:03. > :28:04.Just as we dare to believe summer is actually here,
:28:05. > :28:07.it's all change again tomorrow, with the Met Office issuing
:28:08. > :28:08.a weather warning of potential "torrential downpours"
:28:09. > :28:13.across the country tomorrow afternoon.
:28:14. > :28:21.I guess we were gloating about having better weather than England
:28:22. > :28:26.for a while. And London saying it must be terrible because we get the
:28:27. > :28:33.better weather and it is supposed to trickle down. Will we have to get
:28:34. > :28:36.used to big changes in weather? Business as usual. Character
:28:37. > :28:37.building. I'm back again tomorrow
:28:38. > :28:44.night, usual time, so do