17/01/2018 Newsnight

Dinner in the Eiffel

Tower for Trump.

A cavalry horse for the Chinese.

Now, he's bringing us

an enormous tapestry.

Should we beware French

presidents bearing gifts?

Macron's coming to town -

but what does he want back?

We ask the Foreign Office, where

next for Anglo-French relationship?

He will be very tough in defending

French interests.

We ask the Foreign Office, where

next for Anglo-French relationship?

Also tonight, in the wake

of the Carillion collapse,

we ask Labour's shadow business

secretary whether the government

should run outsourced

services instead.

I think, well, what we need

to do is examine the most

cost-effective way for the UK

taxpayer, and if...

But you'd consider it?

If it's cheaper, yes.

If it's cheaper, and it's

more secure to deliver

those services in-house,

then that is what should happen.

And we hear from two of the many

people who say the predatory Team

USA gymnastics doctor

Larry Nassar assaulted them.

Good evening.

The loan of the Bayeaux tapestry -

a triumphal celebration of England's

defeat at the hands of a European

army - may strike some

as rich in symbolism.

But the gesture by Emmanuel

Macron has been hailed

as diplomatic brilliance.

France's president

arrives here tomorrow.

He will discuss defence

and security with the PM.

But behind the military

welcome at Sandhurst,

and plans to make Britain pay more

for towards the port of Calais,

there may also be a slight sense

of disquiet at the ease

with which Macron wields his power.

"We need to develop a kind

of political heroism.

We need to be amenable again

to creating grand narratives,"

he recently told a German newspaper.

Has he become the de

facto leader of Europe?

And should Britain be worried

he holds all the negotiating cards

when discussions inevitably

turn to Brexit?

Here's our political

editor, Nick Watt,

on the latest Norman conquest.

Ancient military figures appear

to be morphing into diplomats.

A decade ago, China's Terracotta

Army arrived in London

to herald a new era in Sino-British

relations, and now the Bayeux

Tapestry is due to

land on our shores.

It may be a bloody and gruesome

depiction of an English defeat,

but the ever canny Emmanuel Macron

calculates that our affection

for the medieval masterpiece

will allow it to serve as a powerful

signal of warm

relations after Brexit.

I remember going to see

the Bayeux Tapestry.

I think I was about six,

with my mother, and being completely

entranced by the fact that women had

sat and stitched this extraordinary

story which goes all the way

round a room, so that

long-standing relationship,

not always friendly,

that we've had with the French,

but a long-standing,

and absolutely firm relationship

with the French is one that he's

making a bond which has

never been done before,

by offering this extraordinary piece

of work and this story that

shares our heritage.

I think it's one of those

beautiful relationships

which does go through ups

and downs, admittedly.

Over the past 1,000 years

since the Bayeux Tapestry,

but which is still, 1,000 years

later, incredibly strong,

and which is a vector and a product

for cooperation on issues

of tremendous importance,

which impact both our countries.

If you want to find a symbol

of the entente cordiale,

you can perhaps do no better

than visit this statue

of Charles de Gaulle,

the leader of the free French,

who was given refuge in London

during the Second World War.

But de Gaulle personally embodies

the perennially scratchy nature

of Anglo-French relations.

In 1943, Winston Churchill described

him as "vain and malignant",

and two decades later,

he vetoed Britain's

application to join the EEC.

The legacy of de Gaulle,

always to put French interests

first, even at the cost of ruffling

feathers, is upheld by today's

occupant of the Elysee Palace.

Behind tomorrow's friendly

and cost-free gesture lie some raw

French calculations about how

they can use Brexit

to their advantage.

When it comes to French interests,

economic interests,

in the Brexit decisions,

he will be hard-headed, and he will

push for a tough outcome.

I don't think he wants

to have a collapse and a disaster.

I think he wants an agreement,

but yeah, he will be very tough,

single-minded in defending

French interests.

Yeah, they will say,

you can't have your cake and eat it.

If you're in the single market

or aligning yourself

with the single market, fine.

If you're not, you can't cherry pick

that you want to be in this bit

and out of that bit.

And yes, of course, where there's

an opportunity of draining jobs

away from the UK into France,

they will be taking it.

And that gap left by Britain,

and the lack of leadership

in Berlin, has provided

President Macron with a space

to shape his vision for the future

of Europe, which he's been

developing for years.

There was originally a realisation

that Europe in the last ten to 15

years hasn't progressed fast enough

on a certain number of issues,

and that we needed a new force

for proposals, and that was what his

speech at La Sorbonne,

which outlined a whole

host of potential areas

where we could integrate more,

where we could have more cooperation

between European member states,

and more integration

at European level.

I think, at the moment,

on the European scene,

President Macron is the dominant

personality, and he is out there,

as we've seen, taking initiatives,

trying to help in international

crises, cutting a dash on the world

stage, and he is biding his time,

waiting for there to be

a German Chancellor

that he can got to work

with on building Europe.

Emmanuel Macron will signal tomorrow

that France will always

have a special place for Britain

in its affections.

But, as the UK walks away

from the EU, France is already

looking to new horizons.

So, how do we deal with Macron?

Joining me now is Foreign Office

minister Harriet Baldwin.

Very nice of you to come in. The

tapestry is lovely but you heard

that from Peter Ricketts - he is

hard-headed and he wants to drain

jobs away from London, does that

worry you?

Well, it is a wonderful

gesture in terms of this tapestry

which of course was stitched in

Canterbury. So, it is good to be

wonderful having it back in the UK

and I would like to thank the

president for that. But tomorrow's

summit will be very much about our

mutual interests, our shared project

in terms of not only prosperity

within our respective economies but

of course, there will be a lot in

the summit tomorrow about...

Interests in terms

Interests in terms of security and

in terms of the atrocities that we

have both suffered...

But he is the

man who is looking like the de facto

leader in Europe right now

man who is looking like the de facto

leader in Europe right now, he's

going to be hard-headed about this.

Lets look at these things. He is due

Britain to take in more refugee

migrants - are we going to do that?

Theresa May is also a really strong

leader in Europe, and she has got a

very, very clear outline in terms of

what she wants to achieve. Do you

think that...?

The trading

relationship... In terms of the

migrant numbers, the refugee

numbers, do you think she's going to

say yes, we will take in more?

I

think she will point to the very

strong track record that we have in

terms of taking in migrants.

But he

wants more, right?

I do not want to

pre-empt any of the discussions

which may take place tomorrow. The

Home Secretary will be meeting with

her counterpart tomorrow.

What about

him asking for more money, we pay

for security at the border but we do

not pay any more financial

contribution - will we now be doing

that at Calais, is it a fair thing

for the French to ask?

Again I don't

want to speculate in terms of some

of the announcements which may come

out tomorrow, because clearly we

work closely with the French in

terms of the border and we have had

a long-standing co-operation with

them on those issues, particularly

in Calais. It is all about those

shared mutual interests that we have

with France, in terms of not only

our mutual border but also, of

course, the southern area that we

share strong interests in that area

and there will be other

announcements tomorrow pointing to

that.

If you accept the premise that

France will be the likely

beneficiary of any jobs lost in the

City of London, with Brexit, then is

it your inclination to say we have

to work on far closer alignment to

the single market to stop those jobs

training away, do you see how

important that could be to stop

France taking the premier position?

I do not accept the Palace of your

question.

As an ambassador do you

think he is wrong when he thinks

Macron is trying to drain the jobs

from London?

I think he makes a good

point about what Macron has already

publicly said already. I don't think

there is anything new in terms of

some of those things but of course

we have such strong shared

interests, we have a very strong

interest in a successful financial

sector, not only in France but of

course the UK is the global hub for

so much of the world's finance.

That's going to continue, and of

course, it is in Europe's interests

for us to have a strong financial

and global hub here.

Do you think we

should just say we are prepared to

accept job losses, this is going to

be a brand-new start for the country

with Brexit, and if it takes a few

job losses, we will find others, we

won't be so dependent on the

financial sector?

Well, I am going

to talk about how important that

sector is, not only to the UK but

also to the world, and to Europe.

And so there's going to be a

negotiation to be had about how

important that is to our respective

economies, and the summit tomorrow

will be very much focused on the

mutual interests that we have. We

have a very large population of

French citizens here in the UK and a

lot of UK citizens in France, and

there will be a series of

announcements focused on our shared

interests.

The perception is that

Macron seems to handle his diplomacy

with such ease. He pulled off the

Trump visit with elegance whilst

disagreeing with virtually

everything he stands for. In

contrast we leap in the, we hold

hands, we stumble around a bit,

whether there is going to be a state

visit or no visit at all, we look

like we're tearing our hair out on

this one?

Think we're being

incredibly negative and pessimistic

and BBC like there, Emily! The first

person to get over to meet Mr Trump

after he was elected was the British

Prime Minister Annable you don't

think we're in a mess with the state

visit? I think she's had some

fantastic state visits.

With

President Trump?

As you know we have

invited him to return, and those are

ongoing.

I don't want to be BBC

like, I'm just trying to work out

whether we are bargaining President

Trump now, whether that state visit

that we heard about is still

extended by a deal in the government

would say this is a wonderful thing

to be doing now whether there has

been a of mind, that sense of

bumbling amount because we don't

really know any more?

0 in the Prime

Minister made it very clear today at

PMQs that that invitation has been

offered, and tomorrow's summit is

the one with president Macron, and

we will be really focusing on so

much that we do together with the

French, and you've already

highlighted the importance of the

extensive trading that we do in

terms of financial services between

the two countries, but just in terms

of exports alone, we are talking

about a £70 billion relationship.

This is the third biggest trading

relationship that we have. And so

it's an incredibly important

relationship, one which both

premiers will want to show that we

are taking forward and tomorrow's

summit will have some very

substantive announcements and the

communique will show the strength of

that bilateral relationship.

Thank

you very much for coming in.

Jeremy Corbyn accused the government

of being deeply negligent over

the collapse of Carillion

today in the Commons.

Unfortunately for Labour,

the question he appeared to be

asking never quite came,

allowing the PM a fairly

easy ride in what should

have been a tough week.

Mr Speaker - it looks

like the government was handing

Carillion public contracts either

to keep the company afloat,

which clearly hasn't worked,

or it was just deeply negligent

of the crisis that was

coming down the line.

Which?

Which?

Which is it?

Mr Speaker, I'm very happy to answer

questions when the right

honourable gentlemen

asks one - he didn't.

Helen Thomas, our business

editor, is with me.

Moving away from the cut

and thrust of PMQs, Helen,

what else did we learn

about Carillion today?

There was some mixed news today from

the insolvency service. On the good

side, they said that 90% of

Carillion's private sector services

customers want to carry on receiving

those services, they are prepared to

fund them, and that means people

stay in jobs. On the bad side, the

construction business public and

private is basically closed. They

have said work is paused and there

is no sense of how long that paws

will last. People I have spoken to

in the construction industry are

very worried about that. One of news

- they have said any severance

payments going to directors of

Carillion will have stopped as of

Monday. There was this concerned

that directors might still be

receiving big pay-outs. But there

has been another question on pay,

which is about the ability to claw

back past bonuses paid. Now, a good

chunk of those past bonuses would

have been paired in shares which are

now worth precisely nothing. But

what I have heard today is that

nobody is too confident that they

will be able to claw back any of

those past bonus payments.

So what

is your sense of where things go

from here?

We understand that the National

Audit Office is releasing a report

on PFI. These are big,

infrastructure, construction

projects built by private companies,

and those private companies take an

annual payment over 25 or 30 year

contracts, and are also providing

cleaning and maintenance contracts

and so one. Labour has said they

will take all of those PFI contracts

back in-house. You could assume that

report would get some attention. A

few figures that may demonstrate the

scale of this. 700 of these projects

are operating. They have a capital

value of £60 billion, roughly what

they were built for. The total

annual

annual charges on those projects is

about £10 billion, and if there were

no new deals from today, the future

payments would stretch until the 20

40s and total around £200 billion.

Thank you.

But what would Labour do?

Earlier, I spoke to the shadow

business spokeswoman

Rebecca Long-Bailey,

and I began by asking her to now

clarify Labour's position

on public-private partnerships.

Of course, you can't rule out

the use of the private sector.

They have their strengths,

and they have certain

characteristics that we would need

to utilise, but the question

has to be, is this cost

effective for the tax payer?

Would it be cheaper to deliver

those services in-house?

And is the risk greater

by contracting out a private company

that could potentially fail,

or is it better to have them

in-house with a body that's

directly accountable

to the people of Britain?

But essentially there's not

a huge difference now

between you and what the government

is doing anyway.

You're not saying, we're

going to end stuff, you just say,

we're going to look at them

on a case-by-case basis,

and make sure that nobody

is earning excess profits.

Now, if you ask the government

whether they believe

that is happening, they would

presumably say no.

The government's approach

to outsourcing is completely

different from Labour.

They are driven by outsourcing as

part of their ideological make up.

But isn't your ideology to get

the public sector to do more?

To bring everything in-house?

No, this isn't about ideology.

This is about what's best

for public services,

and what is the most cost-effective

method of delivering public services

for the UK taxpayer.

Now, the Conservatives unfortunately

have chosen an ideological path

to marketise public services and put

profit before service delivery.

Now, the interests of the public

and the interests of the taxpayer

should be paramount.

They are not being considered

by this government,

and that is what differs our

position from the Conservatives.

Do you think a Labour

government could commit

to ending PFI completely?

Well, we have committed

to ending PFI.

We've said no new PFI.

No new PFI.

No new PFI.

But would you end all

the PFI arrangements that

are existing at the moment?

Well, legally, we'd have

to look at the mechanics

of each relevant contract.

As I said, there would need to be

an examination of each one.

They will all be very different.

And we would have to look

at the ways we could bring

that back in-house.

There could be certain contracts

that are due to expire shortly,

where it might not be cost-effective

to carry out the legal

costs of doing that,

so we have to look at them

on a case-by-case basis,

but we are very firm that we do not

support a PFI model going forward.

We need to examine other ways

of delivering our large

infrastructure and estate related

projects that are more

cost-effective for the UK tax payer.

But when you look at individual

services, such as prison escort or

school meals, is that something you

can still imagine the private sector

doing?

I think it is a struggle to

see, for example in the case of

Carillion, how that can be

cost-effective for a private

company, to deliver a profit and

also a good level of service. This

is why there needs to be a

fundamental examination of the

delivery of public

delivery of public services.

Serco

delivers prison escorts. Would you

take that on?

We need to examine the

most cost-effective way for the UK

tax payers.

Would you consider it?

If it's cheaper and more secure to

deliver those services in-house, we

would do it.

You would do bin

collection, school meals and prison

escorts without using private

companies?

We are not saying it.

There might be certain cases where

we use private companies where we do

not have that capability. We need to

look at building up capability. We

think it will be more

cost-effective, in many cases, to

bring services in-house, which is

why we have been calling for many of

the public sector contracts that

Carillion hell to come back

in-house.

If there has been a profit

warning, is that reason enough to

say, we are not dealing with you any

more?

If you are following the

strategic risk policy, you have to

follow that guidance stringently,

which would mean you would not award

any further contracts to that

company until the situation is

rectified. The government is

required to ensure there is a crown

representative to oversee Carillion

when problems started to emerge. As

far back as September, we know this

didn't happen. There was no

appropriate oversight of this

contract. There was no attempt by

the government to mediate or

encourage

encourage Carillion to sort the

situation out themselves. It was

left out in the wilderness.

The

oversight was there? So why would it

be right to bring even more

government services back in-house to

be overseen by the people you don't

trust to look into the accountancy,

let alone run the proper businesses

themselves. You are talking about

civil services that didn't get it

right?

We are talking about bringing

services back into the NHS, for

example, and we would want to make

sure there is a stringent assessment

of the capability of those services

to deliver those services.

to deliver those services.

We

have... Wood July to see mandatory

reselection of every Labour MP?

That

is not a decision for me to make.

That is a decision for our

membership to make.

Is that the

right direction to go in?

We want

party democracy. It is not a

decision for me to make. We want the

members to decide how our party will

be run going forward, which is why

we are having a democracy review.

It's not something we've stated the

party will be doing any time soon.

We have trigger ballots in place at

the moment, where branches of

the moment, where branches of a

Labour Party constituency can decide

whether to have an open or closed

selection of an MP. That is our

process at a moment.

Thank you.

Our political editor,

Nick Watt, is here.

There was something

interesting about mandatory

selections in there...?

She is saying that that is not going

to happen any time soon, and she

refers to the status quo, which is

the trigger ballots. There were

fears among centrist Labour MPs that

these mandatory selections could be

on the way, because there was a

landslide victory for momentum

candidates in elections to Labour's

National Executive Committee.

Rebecca Long-Bailey tends to vote

the Corbyn way, and she has been

mentioned by Jeremy Corbyn

supporters as a potential successor.

So far heard to say, not happening

any time soon, will be noted.

Nick,

thank you.

This week, four-time Rio Olympic

champion Simone Biles became

the highest profile athlete to state

she was sexually abused

by former USA gymnastics team

doctor Larry Nasser.

She's one of more than 140

women to have accused

the 54-year-old of abuse.

Larissa Boyce says she was sexually

abused by Larry Nassar

when she was just 16.

Morgan McCaul says she was abused

by Nassar when she was

just 12 years old.

Both women join us

now from Michigan.

It is very nice of you to talk to us

about this. Can I ask you to explain

what happened with Larry Nassar?

The

actions that he did.

In terms of

what happened to you and what you

did.

Well, I was a gymnast, and I

hurt my back, so my coach

recommended that I go to him,

because he was the best around. So I

went and saw him, and he's started

abusing me. After a couple of

appointments, when my parents

stopped coming into the room with

me. And he would abuse me every time

I would see him. At the office, and

at the gymnastics practice at

Michigan State University, where the

College gymnasts...

I don't want to

interrupt, but you told somebody

about this. You tried to make this

known. And what happened?

I did.

When I

When I told Kathie Klages, she

humiliated me. She didn't believe

that Larry Nassar could be doing

this, I must be misunderstanding.

She then paraded in a bunch of my

team-mates to ask if any of them

felt uncomfortable with what he was

doing. All of them but one other

girl said no, so she kept the other

girl in the office, and had asked

talk to the Michigan State College

gymnasts. I remember sitting in her

office, and she was not in her room

any more, but the college gymnasts

said, his hands would get close to

certain areas but that they would

never be inappropriate. They would

never go inside. I said, that is not

happening to me. His fingers are

penetrating me.

I'm sorry. Very

distressing to make you relive this.

I want to talk to Morgan as well. If

Larissa's allegations all those

years ago had been believed, you

would have been spared.

Absolutely.

When Larissa originally came forward

to her coach, I hadn't even been

born yet. I was born in 1999, and

this occurred in 97.

And he was

still doing the same thing with

young gymnasts, young pupils, that

he was in those early days. That was

your same experience, Morgan?

Yes,

we had very similar experiences in

terms of what he would do to us in

the appointments.

What effect has it

had longer term on each of you.

Morgan, if I carry on with you. What

effect has it had on you?

I

struggled with depression and

anxiety ever since. I stopped seeing

Nassar in 2015, but what I believe

this has taken from me is my sense

of identity and my ability to trust

people. I feel like I totally

trusted Nasser. I believed he was

there to help me. He was very

personable. I felt like he was my

friend. And to find that the Man U

trusted more than any other

physician in the world did this

makes you wonder how much you can

trust your own judgment.

Larissa,

when these allegations became

public, and more voices came out, I

imagine for you that was a huge

watershed moment, but also a

frustration that it hasn't come out

earlier.

At first I was defending

him, because I was so brainwashed

into believing that I was the

problem. You know, my MSU coach and

my teacher had told me that what he

was doing was OK, so I just assumed

that I was the problem, that I must

have a dirty mind. And so when this

all came out, like I said, I was

defending him, and then I really

started to look back and remember

the details of the appointments.

Being an adult, I realise that what

he did was not OK, and that it was

sexual abuse. I got very angry. I

think I experienced every emotion

possible. I was angry, I was

depressed, I was crying all the

time. I even one time had a suicidal

thought. I was in so much pain

emotionally that I just didn't know

how to handle all of the thoughts of

how betrayed I was I not just Nassar

but by MSU, Michigan State as an

institution, failed me. And they

failed all of these hundreds of

girls that came after me, and it

could have been stopped. So it's

very, very difficult to think of the

way it could have been stopped.

It

is incredibly brave of you to share

those thoughts with us tonight.

Really appreciate that. Thank you

both very much indeed.

A lawyer for Kathie Klages

has previously said...

Michigan State University

have said...

"Any suggestion that the university

covered up Nassar's horriffic

conduct is simply false.

Nassar preyed on his victims,

changing their lives

in terrible ways."

USA Gymnastics said...

"Our hearts break for these athletes

and we deeply admire their courage

and strength in sharing

their experiences."

We know the NHS in England

is struggling to cope this winter,

as it tries to manage unprecedented

levels of demand.

As more patients come

in through A&E, hospitals have

to get them out of the back door

so that the system doesn't seize up.

For many older patients,

this means having appropriate

social care lined up.

But many older or vulnerable

patients don't have anywhere to go

where they can receive the care

they need, heightening

the social care crisis.

Trevor Davies was

admitted on 21/12/17.

He has got a lot of issues, Trevor.

First of all, he tried

to commit suicide.

He promises that he's not planning

to commit suicide now,

but I am not too sure,

because he's still depressed.

He has said that he's had seven

heart attacks in the past.

He lost his daughter

on his birthday.

His daughter was only 44 years old.

He has got a lot of cancers frosted

in some way in his tummy as well.

The GP did see him yesterday, and he

has been prescribed pain relief.

In terms of the level

of support he is receiving

from you, I don't think...

I'm not hearing that he should

be in a care home.

The last 12 months have

been horrible, you know?

Like, going through a divorce,

my daughter dying on my birthday,

which wasn't very nice, you know?

And it sort of sent me

like into oblivion, you know?

And just what to do,

how to do, where am I going?

So they took me into

a hospital, and got me right.

I come out, and then got me

right again, and I'm sort

of going into the system,

and hopefully they're

going to give me somewhere

where I'm going to be

happy, you know?

This winter is the worst winter

in terms of hospital care that

people have experienced.

The flow of patients from hospital

used to be fairly steady,

but there was always availability.

I'm not coping, so I need

someone to help me cope.

When I've done the assessment

on the computer, and done that bit,

I will send it, as I said,

to my manager, who will look

at it and authorise it,

and once she authorises it,

I'll then go on to ask for funding

for your care package.

Yeah.

I'm dying of cancer.

Terminal cancer.

So I'd like a bit of...

Not sympathy.

Common-sense.

This place is full already.

And it is the place that kind

of supports the discharges

from hospitals, and acts

as a middleman between

the hospital and the community

facilities out there.

If you can imagine that it's full

of people waiting to go in there,

and if you can imagine that you take

this out, it's not there any more,

these people would be in hospital

waiting to be discharged.

I spent seven weeks in hospital,

and then they said they were going

to find a place temporarily,

so they put me here.

I have problems with the lungs,

infection on the lungs,

and also they are concerned

about my heart, and also my liver.

What's stopping you from going home?

There's three or four big steps

to the front door, off the pavement.

There's no shower.

I can't use the bath.

Besides that, I'm getting old now

myself, and I do feel it.

I think, in the future,

I need a bit of care.

And help.

Janet, on unit one.

I was just asked yesterday to meet

with her and do an assessment,

because I know there's a history

of concern around the alcohol.

Have there been any

concerns, any observations?

Not while she's been with us, no.

No?

No.

No evidence of any side

effects through not having

alcohol or anything?

We did notice it in the beginning,

when she first came to us,

because she wasn't getting

what she wanted, her way.

What is it you are drinking?

It's a special mix.

Oh, right.

Fairly regular, anyway.

The social worker's main

focus is the patient.

This particular patient.

But when you look at the bigger

picture, there are many more

things to think about.

Yeah.

I don't mind being here.

I don't mind at all.

Do you know what kind

of a place this is?

It gives people time,

following hospital discharge,

just to improve a bit more, and have

time for an assessment to be done.

So there's a lot of demand,

you know, from hospitals.

That's why we tell people

when we come here,

it is for up to four weeks.

Yeah, I know.

And then we need to try and get care

support arrangements

in place in that time.

Already we're at four weeks,

but it's not your problem

or for you to worry about.

That's for us to sort out.

I can't live on my own.

Not live on your own?

I'll start drinking again.

Got you.

So that's the bottom line?

Yeah.

I'll start drinking.

I won't eat either.

I'll just drink, drink, drink.

You're telling me that you know

that if you went back

and lived on your own, there's a...

I've done it so many times.

I've just gone straight

back to drink again.

Yeah, OK.

Most of the older people that

I have worked with like

to have some choices.

They like to be in

control of their lives.

They like to be independent.

Why did you have to

move around, Janet?

Because I'm homeless.

That's why.

I've got no home to go to.

And we're up to four weeks now.

Yeah, we are, yeah.

How are you feeling about that?

Nervous.

Who wouldn't be?

Who wouldn't be nervous?

The loneliness is a killer.

But I'm in hope, you know?

And when you see a lot of older

people which are worse off than me,

I feel sorry for them.

But I've got the terminal cancer.

Who knows when, who knows where?

I don't know.

At the end of the day, we're sitting

there in front of an individual,

but we can only work

within the constraints that we have

in our job, obviously.

You know, we have to help people

to understand that, and to work

within what is available to them.

There are times when that's a very

difficult conversation.

We know that that's not

what we would want for people,

but it is all we can provide.

That was a look at the Kenrick

Centre, a special counsel Robert

Mueller centre, designed to relieve

hospitals.

With me in the studio

is Graeme Betts, who is interim

director for adult social care

at Birmingham City Council.

Is the Kenrick Centre, which I know

you know well, representative of the

wider problem is that you're seeing

now?

What the Kenrick Centre does is

to provide interim beds as well as

long-term beds. And it is critical

in helping us to manage the

pressures in the system.

And how bad

is the problem at the moment, are

you seeing it get worse?

I mean the

reality is, we can't deny there is a

lot of pressure on people like

myself and other directors to

mitigate that as far as possible.

But in reality, there's a lot of

pressure, that's what the staff are

telling us of. We're using our

resources such as the Kenrick Centre

to mitigate the pressure that's

coming through the system.

And it's

extraordinary to see the work going

on their - is that something that

can be rolled out, something that

you think will be more widely used

if there are resources to do that?

What's interesting about Birmingham

is that we've recognised that across

the system there are challenges

across the system, and we're now

working together very closely to

develop a more integrated approach

to intermediate care, and the sorts

of things that you saw in the

villainy would be part of that, so

we're expanding it.

There would be a

lot of people who aren't able to

make that transition from hospital

to home - when you haven't got a

Kenrick Centre, what happens?

I

would challenge that in some ways,

because what I would say is one of

the areas that we need to improve in

Birmingham is our enablement

services.

Home visits?

Yeah, it's

really helping people regain their

confidence and ability to live at

home. If we could improve that, we

know that we can improve the

outcomes for people. So, as well as

the Kenrick Centre we need to

balance it by using home based

approaches.

It's interesting you're

talking about confidence, so, it is

not just the fact that they can't,

it's giving people the sense that

they will be all right on their own?

Yes. What came through from that

film is the complexity of what we're

dealing with. It's not just that

there are more people coming through

the system, there are more people

with more complex needs coming

through the system, in terms of

physical and mental health and

challenging behaviours as well.

And

do you think that's something that

has changed over recent years?

Certainly. That's what the staff are

telling me. The people snap dealing

with now are poorly, the levels of

sickness are higher, and the

challenges they bring with them are

much more complex. I think that has

an impact in a number of ways, it

mixed the assessment more difficult,

particularly if you think about

trying to assess them in a hospital

setting, it is well nigh impossible

to assess a person's mental

capacity, for example. So, what

we're really trying to do is to use

centres like the Kenrick Centre to

bring people out more quickly from

hospital so that we can do the

in-depth assessment and ensure a

safe discharge and improve the

outcomes for people.

Thank you very

much for coming in. That is all we

have time for this evening. Kirsty

Williams with you tomorrow. From all

of us here, good night.