Roger Berry

Interviewer: Megan Belcher
Interviewee: Roger Berry

Introductions

Megan (00:00:03):
Okay. Right. We are recording. So the things I just want to say at the beginning are, basically within these interviews, if you could only try to refer to your own actions and obviously talk about general things that might be of public record, but just we’re kind of trying to avoid really specifically talking about individual people.

Roger (00:00:26):
Okay.

Megan (00:00:29):
Obviously, it’s slightly different for you, because all of your colleagues would have been publicly in that role, so it’s a bit different, that’s just what we’re saying to everybody, where it might be private citizens whose names are coming up. Obviously, it’s a bit different.

Megan (00:00:45):
So everything that we are going to discuss will be placed in the care of the Museum Service, which has a process in place for secure storage of data, which is GDPR compliant. Well, the process for the interview, because it’s an oral history interview rather than a back and forward, I’ll be nodding along to your answers, rather than giving you verbal cues.

Roger (00:01:13):
Okay. Okay.

Megan (00:01:15):
If you see me doing this, don’t panic. I am engaged. It’s just we want to capture your voice more than mine, if that’s okay with you?

Roger (00:01:24):
That’s fine.

Megan (00:01:27):
So, things to say, it is the 28th of August 2020. My name is Megan Belcher. I am interviewing…

Roger (00:01:36):
Roger Berry.

Megan (00:01:37):
Yeah. And this interview is part of our Forging Our Future research project. So let’s get stuck in.

Beginnings

Megan (00:01:46):
Can you tell me a little bit about your activism or Disability rights background?

Roger (00:01:54):
I guess I first got engaged when I was an [inaudible 00:01:57] Councillor back in the late ’80s, early ’90s. We had a Disability advisory group with whom Councillors met. A number of the Disabled colleagues who participated in that are currently still very active in the movement in Bristol. And it was to really enable Disabled people to influence the policies of the council. We’d set up an equal opportunities unit and so forth, we were one of the loony left councils as we were described in those days, trying to do the right thing. And I mean, in all seriousness, some very important issues started cropping up, like the lack of access to the main building at the council. We sorted that out.

Roger (00:02:39):
But essentially, I became more and more aware of the issues that Disabled people faced. I mean, obviously Mike Oliver had talked about the social model from 10 years or more before and that was becoming increasingly part of the whole debate in the late ’80s and the early ’90s about where are we with anti-discrimination legislation? Where are we with equal rights legislation? And we’d had, in this country, laws to outlaw unfair discrimination on grounds of race and gender, but nothing significantly beyond that. And there was no legislation that protected Disabled people’s rights. And there have been attempts in parliament to introduce such legislation, but thus far, all had failed.

Megan (00:03:28):
Okay. So you said that was in the 1980s, 1990s, and that was very focused on… So it started in Bristol?

Becoming a Member of Parliament

Roger (00:03:37):
That was the scene in Bristol, I mean basically. I mean, what then happened was, I happened to be the Labour candidate in 1992 for Kingswood, Bristol, and the then sitting member of parliament, as the saying goes, talked out Alf Morris‘s civil rights Disabled persons bill. Now, Alf Morris, he wasn’t just the first minister for Disabled people in the UK in the 1970s, he was actually the first minister of Disabled people anywhere in the world. And Alf had introduced this Disabled persons civil rights act in the early ’90s, in ’91, ’92, and it had been talked out by my predecessors in [inaudible 00:04:23] Kingswood just before the general election. So as you can imagine, this became not just for me a sort of personal interest because I’d been involved in trying to support Alf’s legislation, but it became a local issue as well.

Introducing the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill 1993

Roger (00:04:37):
And that’s really when I was elected in ’92, I was very fortunate in that the following year, the number of private members bills, the bills that backbench MPs could introduce was increased from six to seven and there was a ballot and lucky draw for me, I came out as number seven, but it did mean I could pick a bill. And I’d been working with Alf in the commons trying to find some MP who was in the top seven to do the bill. And since my name came up, then I obviously had to do it and was very happy to do. So that’s really how I got involved in picking up a bill that I had not written, the work had been done by Alf Morris and others in the Disabled rights movement. I picked up Alf’s bill and in the parliamentary session, ’93, ’94, that’s when I started spending an increasing amount of time on this whole issue of trying to secure for the first time in the UK legislation that provided equal rights for Disabled people. That’s the beginning of my parliamentary activity on that issue along with others.

Megan (00:05:48):
Amazing. So you say that you were working quite inclusively with Alf Morris for his bill. Does that mean you are aware of what the aims were and then obviously the difference in aims between his bill and then what your bill became?

Roger (00:06:07):
The aims of Alf… I mean, it was just one bill. It was the same bill. I mean, Alf’s bill was designed to secure equal rights for Disabled people and it was meant to cover tackling discrimination in employment, housing, et cetera, et cetera. It was meant to set up a Disabled rights commission that would advise government on how to improve legislation. So the bill that I picked up was exactly the same as Alf’s bill, and it was the same bill that the Disabled Rights Movement had been campaigning for some time. I mean, they’d worked with Alf on this for two or three years before he introduced the bill.

Roger (00:06:49):
So what that meant was, there was actually an organisation that became the Rights Now campaign that originally had the interesting acronym, VOADL, which was Voluntary Organisations for Antidiscrimination Legislation. This was an organisation of… It was a coalition of 50 odd organisations of or for Disabled people. So you had the British Council of Disabled People‘s organisations and other organisations run by Disabled people. You then had a larger number, if truth be told, of organisations for Disabled people. So RNID, RNIB, Radar, et cetera, those organisations were supporting and also the TUC.

Rights Now!

Roger (00:07:40):
And so it was a coalition and this coalition existed before I’d got in parliament, as I say to support Alf’s bill. And this coalition was incredibly well organized and running and ready to pick up Alf’s bill and support whoever was the lucky MP to pursue that. And that’s essentially how the right… We then thought, “Well, VOADL’s a pretty daft acronym. People won’t understand it.” Rights Now!, in bright red letters, did seem to be a better name for the organisation. And it all started there.

Roger (00:08:17):
And there were various… I mean, the government was hostile. I mean, the then government basically said, “All we need is more education and persuasion.” This may sound familiar. And we pointed out that there’d been decades, indeed centuries to have education and persuasion, and it hadn’t yet given the same rights to Disabled people that, for example, protected others from discrimination on grounds of race and gender. So basically the parliamentary process then became rather complicated, which I can go into if you want me to, but I mean, that was the start of the campaign. The government clearly didn’t want it to happen. The Rights Now! campaign was a broad church organisation that wanted to get legislation.

Roger (00:09:08):
My own view was that I couldn’t see any way that the then conservative government was going to accept the bill. They’d wrecked Alf’s bill. But there was a unique opportunity to campaign on an issue that eventually, we hoped we would win through on. And that’s essentially what we did. We used parliament as a process, really for mobilizing people’s activities. The establishment never hands down legislation, they never give you things that they think you shouldn’t have. And at the time, the establishment did not think there should be any specific legislation protecting the rights of Disabled people. So we knew that this was a… We’d use parliament to build on the campaign and hopefully it someday in the future, we would get the kind of legislation actually that we now have, although that’s another story. We’ve still got a long way to go.

Megan (00:10:03):
Okay. So I will definitely go into the whole parliamentary processes in a minute, but you were talking about the hostilities that the establishment and the government had towards the group, the Rights Now! group. And you said that it was a very broad church group of other groups, some for Disabled people, some by Disabled people. Were there any tensions or hostilities within the broad church group, as well as the establishment? Because obviously, or I don’t know whether there would have been some sort of conflict between the by and the for groups.

Roger (00:10:45):
There clearly was and still is, and probably always will be a conflict in a sense between the of and the for. I mean, Disability Rights UK, for example, of which I happen to be a trustee, is an organisation of Disabled people. I mean, Disabled people have the vote, non-disabled members don’t have the vote. The vast majority of trustees under our articles have to be Disabled people. So that’s not an organisation of, and there’s always going to be a tension between organisations like that and other organisations, such as the ones I’ve mentioned, or indeed Scope, et cetera. Not because people are consciously trying to achieve different things, but if you speak for Disabled people, you clearly have an authority. I would argue, most people argue, that organisations that don’t have that governance, simply don’t have. I mean, they may have more money because they’re being good enough to find donors who will give them money to provide services, provide help and assistance for disabled people, but they can’t speak for Disabled people.

Roger (00:11:56):
So essentially the control of the organisation is in the hands of non-disabled people. So, that tension was always there. But in terms of campaigning, I think both in terms of the civil rights Disabled persons bill and to date, there is an enormous amount of cooperation. I mean, when organisations can work together, they can achieve far more than if they’re fighting each other. But the reality is, an organisation of Disabled people is clearly not the same as organisations that are not run by Disabled people, but are seeking to work for disabled people.

Parliamentary manoeuvers

Megan (00:12:32):
Yeah. I completely understand that. So let’s go into the process of your putting the bill in, and it being read within the committee. Can you talk through what happened and any issues that arose?

Roger (00:12:50):
Well, the interesting thing about the system then, I think it’s still the system now, is that the member of parliament who is promoting the bill can effectively choose who sits on the committee. I had, I won’t mention the name unless I’m allowed to, it’s not a public record, but there was a local MP who was totally opposed to the legislation and wanted to sit on the committee. And I said, no, for the simple reason that on a committee, if you’re opposed to a bill, you just keep tabling amendments, you run out of time, the bill never gets out of committee. And I know that this individual is perfectly clear about that was what he would do. He went on to engage in a similar wrecking tactic a bit later.

Roger (00:13:34):
But in the committee, I had to have people I knew who would give the bill a fair hearing. I appointed MPs on a cross party basis. There were members of parliament from all political parties who supported the bill. I mean, obviously there were more from some parties than others, but I was very keen to have a broad coalition, including Nicholas Scott who was the minister responsible for dealing with the bill and I made a point of recommending that his private secretary served on the committee. I knew Nick. I think it was sympathetic. It was that his government wouldn’t let him support, it was the problem. I mean, that’s a matter of pretty well-known record, but I wanted someone close to him to be on the committee to know what we were saying.

Roger (00:14:26):
And to cut a long story short, the then dramatic event was that, I mean, normally you would expect the government minister responsible for dealing with this bill, i.e. Nick Scott to table a whole list of amendments. Nick, meeting after meeting after meeting, didn’t table a single amendment. He was not in the business of trying to amend the bill. He let the bill go through committee. So that was a major achievement, and it wasn’t anything to do with me at all. It was the fact that government minister, )name:Nick Scott}, had decided that he felt it should go through the committee because it would have to go back onto the floor of the house later and that could be when the government could block it.

Wreckers

Roger (00:15:15):
And it was essentially at that so-called report stage that we saw 80 odd amendments tabled by conservative backbenchers, one of whom was the man I’d kept off the committee, which effectively resulted in wrecking the bill because we’d run out of time. I mean, they were wrecking amendments. I mean, 80 amendments at report stage, the final debate, you can’t get through them. So the bill fell because there hadn’t been time for parliament to debate all these amendments.

Roger (00:15:50):
And I mean, at the time, all of the backbenchers, there were five Tory backbenchers who tabled these bills, they all claimed that this had nothing to do with the government. Alf Morris tabled a few parliamentary questions. It turned out that actually, they’d all been cleared by civil servants working with Nick Scott, because the prime minister, the industry department decided they weren’t going to have this. And these wrecking amendments just meant that our bill collapsed and the [inaudible 00:16:27] department who tabled the amendments, had to apologize to the House of Commons, as did Nick Scott, for misleading parliament by saying it was… [inaudible 00:16:33] the members of parliament, they said it was their bills, they drafted them. They hadn’t been written by anybody else. We proved they had been written by civil servants on government instruction and therefore they had to apologize for misleading the House. And although you might think that’s a pretty serious thing to do. I mean, in common parlors, you’d say they were lying, I know. But they survived and our bill got wrecked.

Blocking the streets

Roger (00:16:55):
So the next stage was… We thought, “Well, we’ve got to keep trucking.” And we organized a big rally. I mean, I didn’t organize it, but the movement organized a big rally in Trafalgar Square. We had a couple of thousand people there I’m sure. And we had a rally and some colleagues who were wheelchair users handcuffed themselves to the odd London bus they could find. There were T-shirts, Piss on Pity T-shirts. There was red paint in certain parts of Downing Street.

Roger (00:17:38):
And then the most helpful thing that came out was that the media discovered that the key organizers, sorry, administrator of the Rights Now! campaign was called Victoria Scott. And she happened to be Nick Scott‘s daughter. Now, I didn’t realize this until about three or four weeks before the final reading of the bill. I mean, I’d worked with Vicky for ages, and I didn’t know she actually was the same Scott as Nick Scott. Once the tabloids got this story, this became a sort of father daughter conflict story. And some of the tabloids that had shown no interest whatever in Disability rights, suddenly discovered a great interest because it was one hell of a story. And that kept it rolling for a while.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Roger (00:18:34):
And eventually, and the demos carried on and members of parliament were being lobbied in their constituencies, et cetera. And that eventually led to a situation where the government said it would then consult on its own Disability Discrimination Act, which was carried in 1995. And they thought that would sort of calm things down. And it is true to say that the government’s 1995 Disability Discrimination Act was the first act in the UK to confer as of right certain measures to tackle discrimination against Disabled people. But it left out all sorts of things. It left out education. It dealt with planning years ahead, transport vehicles, but not railway stations, et cetera, et cetera. So there are all sorts of gaps. It was forced on the government, but it was a step in the right direction.

Roger (00:19:40):
And the problem was that, I mean, the government had been quite clear about it, they really didn’t want this legislation. It was being opposed very strongly by the Institute of Directors, by the Daily Telegraph, by most conservative members of parliament who are furious at this idea which had more equalities for legislation. “After all, goodness me, we’ve had the Race Relations Act and we’ve conferred a few equal pay for women business legislation, we can’t have any more of this stuff.”

Roger (00:20:06):
So, that was where we were. But it meant that there was now a recognition that parliament not only could, but had legislated for some, albeit modest, rights for Disabled people. And it just meant that from there on, various other piece of legislation would be introduced until eventually under different government we got a new Disability Discrimination Act. We got the Disability Rights Commission established. And then of course in 2010, the Equality Act. But the struggle was, it seemed like a very long time during that process, looking back with hindsight, it seems that, gosh, that sounds okay then. Well, it’s not okay now, but that’s another story we could perhaps discuss about what still has to be done.

Megan (00:21:01):
Definitely. That’s actually one of my questions. Okay. So I understand the timeline. What was your person involvement with the conservative act? Were you involved at all in terms of what went into it?

Roger (00:21:22):
No, no. No, it doesn’t work that way. No, I wasn’t. I mean, I took part in the debates with great interest, as did many other colleagues and proposed amendments, which were not accepted. At the end of the day, the government had a very, very clear majority. They had their piece of legislation. They weren’t going to tackle education. They weren’t going to establish a Disabled Rights Commission. They were quite clear. I mean, they still genuinely argued, well, they still argued that this was really all about persuasion and education and stuff. It wasn’t about legislating. And they were quite open about legislation did run contrary to their deregulation policies. And because they were rights, I mean, it did.

Roger (00:22:17):
I mean, the government of the day, it was deeply into deregulation on a big scale and what we were about was more regulation. And so there was a fundamental conflict of approach to what kind of society and what kind of role for government we felt was appropriate. So there was no… I wasn’t asked for advice, but in the debates, obviously along with other colleagues, I was trying to table amendments to strengthen the ’95 Discrimination Act. I don’t think we won any of the votes. So what went to Her Majesty for signing was the document the government wanted.

Megan (00:23:06):
Okay. So after the document… Well, not the document, the bill was brought into law, what was the process for the previous broad church group? Had it completely disbanded and your involvement with it?

Roger (00:23:24):
Yeah. No, it didn’t completely disband. And there was, interestingly, I mean, there are various all-party groups in parliament and we had an all-party Disability rights group or all party Disability group, which I was section, then chair, and it was a cross party group. So we had a conservative as vice chair and so, or vice versa. I can’t remember. But it was a cross party group. And that group, we used to meet regularly and we would lobby for changes in relation to Disability issues across the piece. And outside of parliament, I mean, it was of course the case that organisations of and for Disabled people carried on working and lobbying. And they would support legislation that they felt was moving the cause forward and obviously oppose things they felt were holding things back. And so I think in fairness to all the organisations that originally got involved, I think most of them carried on campaigning for better legislation, further improvements to make legislation more comprehensive.

Looking back

Megan (00:24:37):
Okay. So I know you said earlier about looking back in hindsight, is there anything that you wish could have been done more? Obviously with the bill, but also just in terms of… Actually no, I’m getting confused now. So just looking back, is there any comments you’d like to make about any of the processes about what you thought could have gone better or could have been improved on at the time, obviously with hindsight?

Roger (00:25:14):
I mean, I think in terms of the campaigning, I mean a number of us spent a lot of time meeting Disability groups, and learning in my case as currently a non-disabled person learning a lot from Disabled people’s experiences. And I guess we did… I mean, all sections of the movement, we had lots of meetings and campaigning. Looking back on it, the one regret I’ve got is that we didn’t actually try to mobilize support in local government much more, which is a bit odd given that my experience had been originally in local government. And I think that [inaudible 00:26:00], I mean there were good local authorities. I mean, the GLC and I would argue the [Avon 00:26:06] also, and other good local authorities were doing some good stuff, working with Disabled people, asking the right questions, trying to agree about how they could improve life chances for people in their particular local areas.

Roger (00:26:19):
I think a disadvantage of being a parliamentarian is that there’s so much work to do there and it becomes all encompassing. We tended, I think, to not look outwards enough and I think perhaps we did lots of meetings, but I’m not sure we paid enough attention trying to support from local authorities and to work with local authorities. Although the good ones always supported the campaign, but the others we could have spent more time, I think working on. But there’s only 24 hours in the day and some things can be done, some things can’t be done, but that’s a regret.

Megan (00:27:03):
Okay. So I know you mentioned it earlier about what you thought about the policy changes after the ’90s were over. So the act was brought in and then what are your thoughts on the progress that has been made since then?

Roger (00:27:24):
Well, I mean there was an issue of course, about whether the commission for racial equality and Disability rights… Sorry, the Disability Rights Commission and so on should be merged into a single Equalities Commission. At the time I thought, and I think… There was a division in the civil rights movement. There was a division about somebody said, “No, there ought to be a single commission supporting equality for Disabled people. There ought to be a simple commission for racial equality, dealing with racial inequality issues and so forth.” I thought, because I could think of lots of other areas of inequality that weren’t covered by either. I mean, neither directly addressed class inequality, income inequality.

Slashed budgets

Roger (00:28:17):
So I was persuaded that inequalities and human rights commission had the right, that was the all-embracing organisation that could operate effectively across equal rights issues, because people don’t fall into particular categories. If I happen to be a black Disabled woman, then maybe I think the Equality Human Rights Commission would deal with my concerns more than just having to deal with three organisations. So, let’s be clear about this, there was an advantage. The problem, I certainly wasn’t happy about part of the leadership of the Equality Human Rights Commission, and I perhaps better not be more explicit unless you press me, there were some very good Disabled activists involved and they were excellent, but at some of the more senior levels, there were some issues.

Roger (00:29:08):
But then after the 2010 election, the budget was slashed. And so what we have now is a commission whose budget must be something like half what it was when it was originally established with more and more demands on its time. So, first problem, if you’re going to have an organisation that seeks to promote equality and to seek to advise government on appropriate legislation, you’ve got to resource it properly. And if you slash its budget, which is what’s happened in recent years, then that’s going to weaken the organisation and that’s deeply troubling. I mean, the second general point I’d make is essentially about enforcement. There’s no point. There’s no point having a law, or legislation more generally, if the means for enforcing it aren’t there. You’ve got to have mechanisms for enforcement. And if that’s not there, the law’s worthless.

Roger (00:30:08):
I mean, for the last five years, I’ve been involved with the Bristol Law Centre. I’ve just [inaudible 00:30:14] five years as chair and I’m staying, I was a trustee a little longer. And law Centres, for example, exists because there are lots of people who simply cannot exercise their legal rights because they can’t afford to pay for a solicitor. And there’s been cut back in legal aid. So you may have the best equal rights legislation in the world, I’m not saying we do, that’s an ongoing struggle for improvement, but even if you’ve got good equal rights legislation, if you don’t have the means for enforcement, the resources for enforcement, it’s meaningless. I mean, I know lots of people for whom all of the equal rights legislation we have in the statute book is absolutely meaningless because they’re not in a position to enforce it. Either because they don’t have the money to employ a solicitor, or because they’re not well informed on the legislation because we, as a society, don’t do enough to inform people about what their rights are.

Roger (00:31:11):
So I think it’s about enforcing legislation, I think it’s about providing resources to ensure that’s done properly. And I think when it comes to, for example, social security issues, which are mega. That is about [inaudible 00:31:26] providing the money to ensure that the social security system does provide people with what the legislation says they should have. So I think the current situation is perhaps critically about, not only seeking to improve equal rights legislation that we’ve got, but it’s also about the enforcement and resourcing it properly. But it’s also the case that in the case of the Disability Rights Movement, I mean, there’s no doubt that Disabled people are listened to more than was the case 10, 20 years ago, I think. I mean, you look at the media, you talk to people, you look at organisations, grassroots organisations that are working very hard, I think politicians and others find it very difficult now to ignore what Disabled people are saying, but there are still those who, if they can, will. And that’s why, as they say, the struggle continues.

Looking forwards

Megan (00:32:28):
Okay. So I think the final question would be, in terms of your struggle in the process in the ’90s to fight for your private members bill, what do you think can be brought to the struggle today in terms of, obviously not the same legislation, but in terms of what can be translated to nowadays from what worked back then?

Roger (00:33:01):
I think first of all, today I think the whole independent living issue is a much livelier issue… I mean, it’s also been a very important issue for Disabled people, but I think for public policy, I think much, much more needs to be done to ensure that Disabled people have an independent living experience that they want, rather than what’s imposed upon them. So, I mean, there are specific things that need to be done.

Roger (00:33:38):
I just think people have got to keep speaking out. I mean, I just think… And building alliances. I mean, I think the equal rights movement, I mean the history of it, it’s very interesting. I’ve recently watched the Mrs. America TV program. Now that was quite interesting. The campaign for women’s rights in the States, within the women’s movement, there was a big debate about trying to embrace a whole range of issues, understandably so. I mean, abortion rights, gay rights, et cetera. Absolutely. It’s not for a minute that I question the desirability of all of those things and many more, but it divided the women’s movement.

Roger (00:34:25):
And what Mrs. America the… I mean, it’s true, historically it is true that in the UK, we have dealt with, I mean, equal pay for women, legislation to tackle racial discrimination up to a point, Disability rights, gay rights, et cetera. In the UK, these issues have been dealt with separately, until we got to the stage of the Equality and Rights Commission and the Equalities Act. But we got there, not by trying to do it all at once, and much that I deeply regret, deeply regret that this country has been such a conservative country [inaudible 00:00:35:14], that we’ve had to do issues one by one. I actually think these are recognized, that is probably how social change can be achieved in societies like ours. And I think that Mrs. America film demonstrated, if you try to do everything, however wonderful the aspirations were and however brilliant those women were, if you try to do everything at once, there are people out there who will prevent you doing it because it is too much in one go.

Roger (00:35:42):
And so I guess, what just heartens me about this in a sense is it’s the inevitability of gradualism. And so I think what I’m trying to say is, I think whether it’s the Disability Rights Movement or any other equalities movement, I think is about picking issues, single-mindedly focusing on some key issues, in a sense one at a time to make further progress. I mean, social security, for goodness sake, has to be a priority. It’s a priority, not only for disabled people, but for non-Disabled people as well, but it’s failing disabled people mega. Absolutely. And maybe the emphasis should be on picking two or three really key issues for disabled people and focusing resolutely on those. But that’s where I think I’m being more pessimistic and think that we can’t do everything at once.

Wrapping up

Megan (00:36:40):
Perfect. Thank you so much. So we’ve covered a lot today, but is there anything you’d like to bring up that we haven’t gone over already? Anything that sticks in your mind?

Roger (00:36:53):
I don’t think so. I think I’ve probably had my fair whack.

Megan (00:37:01):
Okay. So do you require any restrictions on the use or availability of your interview or any part of it at this point or in the future? You can change your mind at any point and just let us know.

Roger (00:37:13):
No. No, you can just edit the less clear bits. No, no, that’s absolutely fine. No, that’s…

Megan (00:37:22):
Perfect. So I am basically, the process now is going to be that we’ll get it transcribed and then I’m going to go through and do a whole bunch of coding and pick out the key themes.

Roger (00:37:35):
Okay, sounds good.

Megan (00:37:36):
Anything that comes up, would you be happy to do a second interview?

Roger (00:37:39):
Yes, of course I would. Yeah. Yeah.

Megan (00:37:41):
Ah, that’s amazing. Thank you so much.

Roger (00:37:44):
I mean, personally, I’d find it interesting just to see the… I mean, you’ve recorded it, if you want to send me the link, I’d find that interesting. And if it… Gosh, the terrible thing about that is, then there’ll be things that I wished I hadn’t said and things I wished I had said, hopefully more of the second than first. But no, seriously, I mean if it’s no trouble to you, just ping me the link. But you can do whatever you like with it. That was the deal. And I leave it to you, Megan, to make the judgment.

Megan (00:38:16):
Perfect. Okay. So I’ll download it and then I’ll send it over to you. I’ll go through the consent form in a minute and just check that everything’s signed that needs to be signed.

Roger (00:38:26):
Sure. Yeah.

Megan (00:38:26):
And yeah, I’ll hopefully be in touch with you soon. Well, I will be in touch either way, but potentially to do a second interview.

Roger (00:38:32):
That’s great.

Megan (00:38:33):
Amazing. Thank you so much, Roger.

Roger (00:38:35):
Well, good luck with the research and I really hope it goes well. It’s a really interesting project.

Megan (00:38:41):
Thank you. We appreciate you being part of it.

Roger (00:38:44):
You’re welcome, Megan. Thanks a lot. Take care.

Megan (00:38:45):
Have a good day, bye.

Roger (00:38:45):
Bye.

Scroll to Top