tv BBC News at Ten BBC News May 22, 2017 10:00pm-10:31pm BST
tonight at ten: theresa may is forced to backtrack on one of her key manifesto pledges, on reforming social care in england. on the campaign trail, theresa may says she would consider imposing a cap on the total amount people might pay for care, but she denies this is a u—turn. nothing has changed. but talk of imposing a limit has come after days of controversy about elderly people being forced to pay more for their social care. the basic principles remain absolutely the same as when they were put in the manifesto and announced last week. as elderly people and their carers took in news of the change, the prime minister's opponents accused her of causing anxiety and turmoil. they haven't said what the cap is. they haven't explained to the millions of people who are desperately worried about the sort of care what they're about the sort of care that they're going to get in the future.
this is a government in chaos and confusion. we'll be looking in more detail at the conservative approach to social care in england, and what it could mean for the election campaign. also tonight... president trump starts his official trip to israel and expresses confidence about a peace deal with the palestinians. i've heard it's one of the toughest deals of all, but i have a feeling we're going to get there, eventually. facebook insists that it is serious about monitoring offensive material posted on its pages. and two centuries of tradition injapanese art stealing the show at the british museum. and coming up in sportsday on bbc news: david moyes resigns as sunderland manager afterjust one year in charge. the club ended the season bottom of the premier league. good evening.
the prime minister stands accused of performing a hasty u—turn on her plans to reform social care in england. just four days after publishing the conservative manifesto — and following widespread controversy — theresa may claimed she was now ‘clarifying' the policy. the prime minister said she would consider imposing a limit on the cost of home care for the elderly. mrs may's opponents said the about—turn was the very opposite of ‘strong and stable‘ leadership. our political editor, laura kuenssberg, reports. serenely rolling along, it had seemed, with only a few noises off. an antihunting protest was the last of the tories' problems today. the manifesto created a mess over social care that had to be cleared up. the original version of the tory plans were to be bundled away.
it might not sound like it, but this is a big change to what theresa may had planned — introducing a limit, a cap, on how much people in england could have to pay. this manifesto says that we will come forward with a consultation paper, a government green paper, and that consultation will include an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs. you have just announced a significant change to what was offered in your manifesto, saying there will now be the possibility of a cap on social care that was not in the plans that was announced just four days ago. that doesn't look so strong and stable, prime minister, it looks rather like panic in the face of opposition. our social care system will collapse unless we address this problem, and we can't leave it to the future, we have to start dealing with it now. that is why i want to fix it, and i'm going to fix it.
she was, though, pressed again and again, seeming exasperated by the end. nothing has changed. let's be clear, we have not changed the principles that we set out in the manifesto, we are very clear about the principles on which this system will operate. she wasn't hanging around. and ministers, well, they didn't really want to talk about it either. can i ask you very quickly about the u—turn on social care? secretary of state, can we ask you very quickly about the u—turn on social care? when did theresa may change your mind? a closed—door, because just yesterday, ministers were saying nothing was going to change. any chance that you will look at it again? no. but there were concerns inside the party. the prime minister herself had heard nerves on the doorstep. about the old people...
the principle of who pays stays the same, but the change of heart is a gift and a source of gags for labour. another u—turn, jeremy? you cannot trust this woman, she does u—turns an immigration, on parliament won't be meeting, having an election until 2020! you can't trust her! and it is what is called strong and stable! but the opposition is still attacking the part of the plan that remains — the value of people's homes in england will be factored in for all kinds of social care, even though assets below £100,000 will be protected. this is what happens when you have a government that thinks it's going to win with an enormous majority. governments that have landslide majorities make bad decisions, big mistakes and take people for granted. social care is devolved, decided separately in wales, northern ireland, and in scotland, where her plans for the future will be published in the manifesto tomorrow. theresa may, though, has been trying to make inroads
in areas that have been hostile to tories for years. she's a liar and a coward! and don't forget, she's been trying to make this campaign all a question of leadership. are you embarrassed by this u—turn, prime minister?! tories out, tories out! the prime minister is adamant she has not budged on her principles, but she has made a big change to her plans published just a few days ago. for the first time in this general election campaign, theresa may looks rattled. the tories say they are the only ones who are willing to be honest about the cost of social care. why was there no mention of a cap in the manifesto? but if honesty is the best policy, seemingly, that involves being ready, at short notice, to take your own plans apart. laura kuenssberg, bbc news, wrexham. the idea of a cap, or limit, was first put forward in a government review, commissioned by david cameron when he was prime minister.
it had been due to come into force last year but was then put off until 2020. 0ur social affairs correspondent, alison holt, examines how the conservatives intend to tackle the challenge of an ageing population. pensioner peter martin is fulltime career for his 88—year—old mother, doris. limited savings mean they qualify for council help, getting three visits a day. like some more tea? oh, i would love a tea. ok, i'll make you another cup of tea, then. peter has spent the last few days trying to work out what the conservative care plans would mean for them. he believes they'd lose local authority help because the value of their home would be included in calculations for the first time. at the moment, we're paying £68 a month. and if the new system came into effect tomorrow, we'd be paying £950 a month. he says he finds little reassurance in the promise they could pay later. he also wants more details on how a care cap would work.
under the new system, i see only uncertainty. i see the money disappearing very quickly, the debt rising very quickly. and just a complete lack of certainty for the future. so what would the tory plans mean for people who need care? at the moment, in england, anyone who has assets or savings of more than about £23,000 pays for their care. last week in their manifesto, the conservatives said they'd increase that, allowing people to keep £100,000. the value of their home would be included in the calculations for both residential and home care, deferred payments would allow the costs to be recouped from someone's estate after death. but it is what was missing that has caused the controversy. no mention to the cap or limit
to the massive costs someone would still face before they got council help. it had been a 2015 election promise. now theresa may says they will consult on what she calls an absolute limit, but doesn't say what that will be. sir andrew dilnot wrote the report which said a cap on care costs was essential to help people plan ahead. worried by last week's proposals, he welcomes this change. the proposals, as they were described last week, failed to answer one of the two big questions about social care — how is everybody going to manage the risks that they face? so people with last week's proposals were left with an enormous fear about the future. putting a cap in place means that people will be able to manage it, and that means this set of proposals is much better. many questions remain about the costs and details of the plans, but for people like peter and doris, getting this right couldn't be more important. alison holt, bbc news. earlier this evening, the prime minister was asked again to explain her thinking on social
care, when she spoke to the bbc‘s andrew neil. we have not rewritten the manifesto. the principles on which we have based our social care policy remain absolutely the same. we need to ensure that we have long—term sustainability in social care. we need to be able to ensure we can fund social care for the future. we're doing the honest thing about putting a proposal to the british people. and they will make their choice on that. how could it be honest to reject a cap in your manifesto and four days later say, we are going to have a cap? that is honest about that? i set out in our manifesto was a series of principles to say to people, this is a big issue, will need to address it and we being honest that we need to fix it and thatis honest that we need to fix it and that is what i want to do. i will not bury my head in the sand play
politics thatjeremy corbyn. i'm going to fix it. i'm going to fix it. 0ur political editor, laura kuenssberg, is with me. this kind of absurd is not usual in a campaign of this kind. what impact could it have on the conservative campaign? unusual for two could it have on the conservative campaign? unusualfor two reasons, because in living memory, there is no other main party leader who has made a significant change to their published manifesto that they waved in front of the cameras days after putting it out into the public domain. it is also unusual because this is the first time in this election campaign at least we have really seen theresa may showing the pressure clearly being rattled and being exasperated by repeatedly being exasperated by repeatedly being asked the same straightforward questions and struggling to give clear a nswers questions and struggling to give clear answers and is trying to wriggle out of a technique 0t of whether this is a change a lot. denying this is a straightforward u—turn, but this is a change to the
plans put forward several days ago. theresa may and the tories have clearly made the political calculation was worse to suck up the political embarrassment of a day like today rather than stick to a set of plans that could risk serious, serious damage to their prospects. 0ne cabinet minister said, better deal with it now than risk it overtaking the whole campaign. this is the problem, theresa may has made this campaign obviously and deliberately about questions of leadership. her resolve, her determination to make decisions and to stick to them. and we have here an episode suggesting she is maybe quite a lot more susceptible to pressure and her team and the rest of the tory party would have us believe. again, thank you. again, thank you. a reminder — for all the latest election news and analysis, go to our website: and if you want to watch all of andrew neil's interview with theresa may,
you can do on the bbc iplayer. nhs trusts in england will record a deficit of around £750 million for the year ending march 2016. the figures have been made public, despite the government's insistence that they should not be published during an election campaign, in line with whitehall convention. 0ur health editor, hugh pym, is here with more details. tell us about well—being. tell us about well-being. -- tell us about the figures. they are important figures about the state of nhs finances in england and they we re nhs finances in england and they were due out at the end of may but the department of health and brady told nhs leaders, you cannot publish them because that would be a breach of whitehall convention, restricting government announcements. nhs leaders were not happy as tonight,
one organisation representing trusts and nhs providers has put out its own estimate, saying there was a deficit of between 700 and £750 million, a big deficit but they say an improvement on the previous year because of cutting agency staff bills. so this is an absurd position that the public figures were not released until a couple of weeks but versions have been doing the rounds tonight. very much. labour says it will bring forward its pledge to scrap tuition fees to include students starting university in england this autumn, if it wins the election. jeremy corbyn also said that students, who are part—way through their courses, would not have to pay for the remaining years. in labour's attempt to reach out to young people, mr corbyn also promised more investment in britain's arts, music, film and theatre, as our political correspondent, ben wright, reports. in what used to be an old fruit and veg market, jeremy corbyn upped his sales pitch to students in hull.
labour had already promised to scrap tuition fees for english students studying at english universities from next year. now he says students starting this year will be free of fees. surely we should be investing in our future. somebody who doesn't achieve the profession they want — nursing, teaching, medicine in some otherform, engineering, — whatever it happens to be, they lose out, but we, as a society, lose out because we've lost a qualified person who can help improve our industries, improve our services, improve our quality of life. from this autumn, universities in england can charge up to £9,250 a year for undergraduate courses. labour says new students and those part way through courses would have free tuition from this autumn. the party claims this policy would cost the taxpayer £9.5 billion a year. but the tories, lib dems and those studying the numbers said the policy would benefit better off graduates most of all. if you're a relatively low earner, you'll never pay back anything
like what you've borrowed and the whole thing gets written off after 30 years. it's only the higher earners who pay it all back. so if you get rid of the tuition fees, then it's the highest earners who benefit the most and the lowest earners don't benefit very much at all. jeremy corbyn‘s on the stump today with one of hull's heavy hitters, labour's john prescott. but ifjeremy corbyn‘s going to have a chance of getting to number ten injust over two weeks, it's young voters he needs. today's policy is a clear attempt to woo them. education is a devolved issue and scottish students at scottish universities already pay no fees. at the university of hull today students weighed up the latest have inducement from labour. have concerned about how it's going to be funded. also concerned aboutjeremy corbyn on policies such as trident. major concern, i'm unsure about him. i won't be voting labour again unfortunately. amy?
i think it's going to go down really well with students. labour policies are historically pretty popular with students. i think this will be absolutely no exception. at a rally here this evening, a rapturous welcome forjeremy corbyn, but in this labour—held city is he just preaching to the converted or reaching new supporters? ben wright, bbc news, hull. president trump, who's on a visit to israel, has demanded that iran stop supporting what he called terrorists and militias. he said there was a growing realisation in the middle east of the threat posed by iran. and he underlined the strength of the link between the united states and israel, suggesting there was a rare opportunity to move forward with seeking peace between israelis and palestinians. 0ur north america editor, jon sopel, sent this report. even with his arrival on air force one, a small piece of history was made — the first—ever direct flight between saudi arabia and israel. the two countries have no
diplomatic relations. he's here on an outreach programme, not that melania trump seemed very interested in that. the self—proclaimed deal maker is after what he called the ultimate deal, peace between israelis and palestinians. we have before us a rare opportunity to bring security and stability and peace to this region and to its people, defeating terrorism and creating a future of harmony, prosperity and peace. but we can only get there working together. there is no other way. after the warmth of his reception in saudi arabia, it seemed the whole israeli ruling cast had decamped to the airport to make a public display of appreciation towards this
country's most important ally. it was then on tojerusalem, a still divided city, whose future status will be hotly contested any currency peace agreement. when donald trump was a candidate, he vowed the us embassy would move from tel aviv to jerusalem, now under pressure from the palestinians that seems increasingly unlikely. as a candidate, he had nothing to say about settlement building in the west bank. now that he's president, he's urging israelis to be cautious. it seems that the candidate and the president can be two different people. but symbols can be as important as words. it won't have been lost on israelis that donald trump became the first president to visit the western wall, one of judaism's most holy site. he put a note in a crevice, a tradition going
back centuries. the trump mission to bring together the three great religions of christianity, judaism and islam. this evening, donald trump went to have dinner at the israeli prime minister's residence and benjamin netanyahu was sounding unusually upbeat and positive about the future prospects. for the first time in many years, and mr president, for the first time in my life tip, i see a real hope for change. but in the west bank, talk of change and new beginnings seemed as far away as ever, as israeli soldiers clashed with palestinian protesters, some clearly unhappy about the president's visit. 0ur middle east editor, jeremy bowen, is injerusalem. what are your impressions of this visit so far? first of all, the comments about iran. things which will go down very well with the israelis and the saudis, the reality
is that president trump continues to honour the nuclear agreement with the iranians. now iran and israel have been drawn together by their shared feeling that iran is an enemy. now that is unlikely, i mean, i beg your pardon, saudi arabia and israel have been drawn together by a shared feeling that iran as an enemy. i think that is very unlikely to translate into saudi arabia taking up israel's positions on the palestinians. the saudis already have a peace plan of their own that's been on the table for 15 yea rs, that's been on the table for 15 years, offering full peace and recognition by arab countries of israel in return for a palestinian state in the whole of the west bank and eastjerusalem. the israeli government is way away from accepting anything like that. also, the palestinians and israeli leaderships really dislike and distrust each other. that's another big problem. so president trump thinks he's a deal maker with the
personality to cut through the kinds of problems that have defeated lesser men. now i think that the whole point about what's going on here, it's not like trying to fix the price of an office building. it's not about trying to get the numbers right. it's about reck numbers right. it's about reconciling the world views with very different perceptions about the way ahead. jermey bowen there, our middle east editor there in jerusalem. facebook says it takes very seriously its responsibility to monitor offensive material posted on its pages, after leaked documents showed its policy is not to remove all graphic content, including some threats of violence. the live—streaming of people self—harming is also tolerated, because facebook says it doesn't want to censor or punish people in distress. 0ur media editor, amol rajan, has more details. the founder of facebook is nothing
if not an idealist. facebook's mission is to make the world more open and connected. but such openness comes with dangers. with nearly two billion users now, the sheer volume of content on facebook is proving impossible to control. the leaked policy guidelines refer to areas such as extremist violence, revenge porn and self—harm. moderators are required to intervene when there is a statement of intent to commit violence against an identified and vulnerable person. so a specific threat targeted against the american president would be deleted. but a more general expression of massive such as this would not. these guidelines show that the soon to be 7500 moderators who work for facebook are often making hugely important decisions under immense time pressure. but the reporter behind the story says it's just too big a responsibility. we
realise what the extent and breadth of the problems that facebook has, everything from racial problems on the site to revenge porn. there's no way that mark zuckerberg would have thought 1a years ago that facebook would have been facing those issues in 2017. a former facebook staffer says its role is not to be the asher of what is and isn't offence itch material. —— arbitor. of what is and isn't offence itch material. -- arbitor. it's not a bunch of people making it up as they go along. 0ver many years, this rule book has been built up as new social problems come along, new users come along. the company says, "we work ha rd to along. the company says, "we work hard to make facebook as safe as possible while enabling free speech. in addition to investing in new people, we're building better tools to keep our community safe." amy wilson, who has self—harmed in the past, was upset when asked by facebook to remove images of her healing wounds. she believes such images can symbolise recovery. but
the images of people in crisis should never be shown. the images of people in crisis should never be shownlj the images of people in crisis should never be shown. i don't think photos of actual self—harm and somebody doing it on the live streams or photos of wounds, i don't think they should be shown at all. i don't understand how there could be any positive in it. facebook say they work with law enforcement to save lives. but all this is uncharted terrain, neither a simple platform nor conventional publisher, technology giants are a new kind of company growing so fast that the law and public opinion is struggling keep up. president trump's former national security advisor, michael flynn, will reportedly refuse to give evidence to a congressional committee, investigating alleged russian links to the us presidential election. he's been summoned to give evidence to the inquiry but is expected to invoke the fifth amendment, which gives him the right not to incriminate himself. a prison psychiatrist, who until last month worked at woodhill prison
in buckinghamshire, has told bbc news that safety improvements were not made following a series of suicides, because there was a shortage of staff. since 2013, 18 inmates have died at woodhill prison. according to official figures, there were 120 suicides in jails in england and wales in 2016 — a record number. campaigners will find out tomorrow if the high court is to order improvements at woodhill. 0ur correspondent, michael buchanan, has the story. this is england's deadliestjail. 18 prisoners have killed themselves at woodhill since 2013. levels of assault and violence are also rising. the prison is chronically understaffed. inmates can be locked up for 23 hours a day. what does that do to you, to be locked up for that amount of time? well, it has a big impact on you mentally. it can give you serious mental health issues. i must have got some of them myself. jamie blyth has been in and out of woodhill for the past 12 years. everyone can break and i was at
breaking point, like. and obviously, my brother hit that point and now he's gone. his brother, daniel, killed himself in prison last year. an inquest jury found woodhill‘s failure to learn from previous suicides contributed to his death. jamie was in a neighbouring cell block at the time. he has known seven of the 18 prisoners who have died here. we're getting the wrong type of staff. we ain't got... like, where we used to get all the old ex—forces and that, guys that were, you know, could be annoying and hard to be around, but they were straight and you where you stand with them. we're getting a lot of people that i don't think are meant for the job. campaigners will learn tomorrow ifjudges are willing to order improvements at woodhill. they argued before the high court last month that the prison had failed to fulfil previous promises to make the jail safer. their concerns about woodhill come amid record levels of prison suicides across england and wales. since 2012, the number
of prison officers has fallen by more than 4,000. during the same period, the number of prison suicides has virtually doubled. i remember going home and saying, myjob has become insane! elisabeth van horn worked as a psychiatrist at woodhill for a year, until last month. she resigned, frustrated at the challenges she faced. there've been a number of inquests after suicides saying that things have to change. did anything actually change? no, not... erm, not really. you can only get things done if you've got the workforce to do it. so was the prison regime itself creating mental health problems? 0h, definitely, yeah. particularly for people with pre—existing mental health problems. that's a sort of added burden that they really cannot cope with. nearly £1 billion has been taken out of the prisons and probation budget in recent years, but ministers now say they're looking to recruit 2,500 new prison officers. prison suicides don't elicit
widespread sympathy, but each one leaves another family bereft. and each avoidable death also blunts the argument that prison works for both public and prisoners. michael buchanan, bbc news, woodhill prison in buckinghamshire. a promise to campaign for a referendum on the final brexit deal features prominently in the manifesto of the green party of england and wales. the co—leader, caroline lucas, who was the party's only mp before the election was called, set out what she called a green guarantee, including a universal basic income and a shorter working week. 0ur political correspondent eleanor garnier reports. the greens are a party with notjust one but two leaders. in central london today, they set out what they called big and bold ideas, which they insisted were possible. this election is about what kind of future we want for our children. it is about protecting our values of openness,
of compassion, of cooperation. it's about our promise that a confident and caring future is possible, if we work together, if we do politics differently and if we dare to be more ambitious. on the terms of any brexit deal. they want to explore having a universal basic income and a shorter working week. plus, they've got a long—term aim to scrap university tuition fees in england and all existing student loan debt. they're defending one seat but hoping to win over voters in places such as bristol west. i feel like a lot of green supporters are now maybe going more labour because labour have maybe more of a chance. but i'm still a green supporter. i wouldn't personally vote for the green party.