The Nation interview with Bill English

Patrick Gower interviewed Bill English on The Nation this morning. He spent the whole time questioning English about the Todd Barclay saga, what he knew, when he knew it and why he didn’t do more about it sooner.

Generally English handled it fairly well, and despite The Nation’s excitement when they thought they had scored a headline there wasn’t anything new revealed. That was pointed out to them on Twitter and that line seems to have been dropped.

This was their eventual story:

It ended up being a bit of a wasted interview.

Video: Interview: Bill English

Full interview transcript:


The Nation: Patrick Gower interviews Bill English

Headlines:

Prime Minister Bill English now says there’s no evidence that his MP Todd Barclay actually did make recordings of his colleague, Glenys Dickson.

English says he’s satisfied that the issue has been handled as well as it could. He says no one comes out of it looking good, but he hasn’t let voters down.

Patrick Gower: Prime Minister, thank you for joining us. Now, this interview is all about trust – whether you can be trusted. It’s about your integrity and your standards. I want to start by asking you to be clear. When did Todd Barclay tell you that he made these recordings? When exactly did he tell you?

Bill English: In a conversation which was related to the police when I was asked about it.

Do you remember when it was? Like how long ago?

It was after the events that occurred, I think, in early 2016. The police inquiry began in March or April I think.

Yeah, but we know from that that you called Glenys Dickson on 6th of February, on Waitangi Day, in 2016 and told her Todd Barclay had a recording of her. That’s correct, isn’t it?

I can’t comment on that in detail.

Sure. But we do know that you did send that text to Stuart Davie on February the 21st where you said in it, you knew there’d been a recording and that you knew there’d been a privacy breach and a pay up. That was on February the 21st 2016. That’s correct, isn’t it?

I told him what had been told to me, letting the electorate chairman, who’s in charge of the local National Party, know what I knew.

So at that point, which is 16 months ago, you knew what had gone on. There’d been a recording, a privacy breach, you’d spoken directly to both sides. Let’s look at some of your public statements that you made after that, because less than a month later, on the 1st of March, asked by media if you’d talked to any of the parties involved, and I’m going to quote you here, you said, ‘No. Not directly.’ Was that a lie? Because you’d spoken directly to both sides.

Look, no. In the first place—

Was it a lie or not?

In the first place, the fact of a recording has never actually been established. The police investigated, came to no conclusion, no court decision.

This is about your question where you’re asked, ‘Had you talked to any of the parties involved?’ And you said, ‘No. Not directly.’ But we know from your own statement that you’d spoken to both parties directly. Did you lie?

At the time there was a confidentiality agreement around the settlement of an employment dispute and a police investigation. I didn’t know what I could and couldn’t say. I did not want to compromise either of those pretty serious processes.

But you could have said that instead of saying what you said, which was potentially a lie, wasn’t it?

I could have explained it better, but that’s 20/20 hindsight. At the time, information that I had I’d passed to the electorate chair and subsequently to the police when they were asking questions.

Okay. So from that day that you knew about the recordings until this week, which is actually 16 months or more—

Well, again, the fact of the recordings has never actually been established. The police investigated it over 10-12 months.

So from the time that you told of the recordings by Todd Barclay and by the person who believed she was being recorded, 16 months or more have gone by. Now, this week, you said that that behaviour was unacceptable. Do you remember saying that? That that behaviour was unacceptable?

Well, it’s referring to what was a whole lot of behaviour going back to early 2015, so over a couple of years.

Yeah, but you said that the recording was unacceptable this way.

The fact of the recording has never been established. But the behaviour I was referring to was over a whole period of time. This is a sad situation — the breakdown of the relationship—

You said the behaviour was unacceptable in reference to the recording.

I said it was unacceptable. The behaviour—

The question here is anyway, there’s unacceptable behaviour and for 16 months you sit by and do nothing. Was that the right and honourable thing to do, Prime Minister?

I think you need to understand here that we had two people that I both knew. Good people who fell out very badly. A difficult employment dispute grows out of that. I was not a part of that dispute at all. That had to be resolved between the employer and employee who both had obligations. Then there was a police investigation. So the matters involved in this would be dealt with appropriately by the people who needed to — the employers. And when the police complaint was made, the police were dealing with it.

But when it happened and you found out about it, you obviously knew then – you surely knew then — that Todd Barclay had potentially done something illegal when he told you about that recording that he’d done.

I wasn’t aware that the activity, whether it was legal or not. I’m not a lawyer. I was concerned about the broader picture of an employment relationship that had gone in a bad way.

Yeah. But when he said, ‘I’ve recorded her,’ you must have known that was potentially illegal. Everybody in New Zealand politics remembers the Teapot Tapes and what happened there. Everyone knows the ramifications of secret recording. And, in fact, you yourself have been recorded secretly before in a National Party conference. You must have known when he said to you, that he’d potentially done something illegal there. You must have known.

When I was recorded there was no legal or criminal action arose.

When the Teapot Tapes happened, Police raided media, you know that. So you must have known there were some potential ramifications.

I’m not a lawyer, and when the matter did arise, it was fairly quickly in the hands of the police. In New Zealand, the way our system works, the police investigate, they then lay charges, then it’s up to a court to actually decide whether the act was actually criminal. That process has not occurred. In New Zealand people are presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. I’m not a lawyer. All that process, the opportunity for that did unfold. It didn’t come to a conclusion.

Sure. So let’s look at the police investigation part of this. On the 27th of April 2016, that was when you gave your police statement, wasn’t it? So, if we look at your public statements about that, on the 21st of March this year, you were asked to clarify your involvement in the police investigation. You replied that you knew the people and did not want to comment further. ‘All I know is that the matter has been resolved.’ Why didn’t you say then that you’d been interviewed by police? Were you trying to hide something? Were you effectively there lying by omission?

This was a police investigation that had gone on for many months through 2016. It came to a conclusion that they weren’t going to lay charges, and in that sense, the issues had been resolved.

Yeah, but you were asked to clarify your involvement. You had been spoken to and interviewed, and you chose not to say that? Were you trying to hide it?

No, I wasn’t trying to hide anything. I was trying to ensure that the processes that all these events had been through, a significant employment dispute, then a eight or nine-month police investigation were respected. Because until these people have charges laid against them and it’s a public matter, or a court decides it’s a criminal matter, they’re innocent of the allegations.

Sure. Let’s look at another statement that you’ve made as well. Because when you were asked, in March again, if Barclay had acted inappropriately you said, ‘All I know is the police investigation is come to an end, so the matter is closed.’ But you knew that he’d told that he’d made the secret recordings, so you much more than the fact that the investigation had been closed.

What I knew is that I had, in response to questions from the police, given them that information. This idea that somehow giving information to the police is a cover-up is ridiculous. The police investigated the whole matter. I don’t know what actions they took. I don’t know what evidence they saw. I don’t know who they spoke to. What I do know is there is no more thorough way for the allegations to be investigated than—

Than with the New Zealand police.

…than to have the New Zealand police.

But what we’re looking at here are your public statements when you’re asked about your involvement, and here’s another from this week. You said you couldn’t remember who told you about the taping when it was later revealed, as you know, that your police statement clearly said it was Todd Barclay. Is that really credible to say that you forgot who told you? Can you understand how people just don’t believe you?

Well, I said what I thought. I went and checked the police statement.

No, but you forgot. Do you think people believe that you forgot?

Paddy, did you want to hear what I had to say? I said what I thought. I went and looked at the police statement, and I clarified the matter as soon as I could.

Here’s another one, then. On your way to Parliament this week in the press conference, you said that you reported this to police. You didn’t. They came to you. Why did you say that?

Well, that was a generalised use of the word, but, again, I’m quite happy with the view. I answered questions from the police and in the course of that I confirm—

But you didn’t report it to police. They came to you.

And I didn’t mean to give the impression that I had initiated it, but the police did already have the texts that I sent, quite appropriately, to the election chairman, letting him know what I knew. Then the police came and asked me, and, really, the interview simply confirmed the content of the texts.

The point that I’m getting at here is these all these public statements that kind of don’t match up. It’s like you’re dodging things. It’s like you’re being shifty, Prime Minister. Were you being shifty all this time?

No, I wasn’t. As someone who wasn’t party to this dispute right from the start, but you all knew the people involved, trying to ensure that the confidentiality of the agreement was respected and that the police investigation was accepted and the result of that was accepted as a thorough investigation of the circumstances, after which no charges were laid. And that sense, there wasn’t an issue. If the police investigate it and no charges are laid, then the assertion that criminal activity occurred appears to be wrong, because there was no criminal process that came to any conclusion.

But with all due respect to all of that, and, actually, I agree to some of that, this is about your answers to these questions. And the thing is some of your answers have just been plain wrong. How can anybody trust anything you say on this?

Look, my role in this is clear. It’s on the record. The material I’ve supplied has been investigated by the police. The issue has now been resolved at a political level. Todd Barclay, as a young guy, has made a brave decision to leave politics because of the situation as it’s unfolded. Our job is to resolve what is actually messy personnel issues within our party, do that effectively so we can get on with governing. I’m not a lawyer.

But aside from your own failures here, basically, to own up to your own role, you also sat by and watched Todd Barclay lie publicly; he lied to senior National Party figures, he lied at his reselection. Is that ok with you that you just stand by?

You’re making that assertion. It’s never been established that the alleged incident around the recording actually occurred. In any case, the discussion around—

He told you it happened.

His selection was carried out because of these events, and all the facts were known to his local electorate. In our system there was no charges laid. There was a confidential settlement of the employment dispute in our system. And local electorate is responsible for the selection of the candidate. They were aware of the background and went ahead and selected him.

Do you not feel that you’ve owed voters more on this now that you look back and we look at all these statements? Do you not feel that, ‘I let the voters down here’?

No, I don’t feel that. I feel that these issues have now been resolved. The original dispute is just between two good people who fell out very badly, and it’s actually been an internal personnel matter. It’s been thoroughly investigated.

Why did he have to leave Parliament, then? Why did Todd Barclay have to leave Parliament? Because nothing had changed in all of this that whole time, except you got caught out. That’s all that’s changed.

No, I don’t agree with that. Todd made his own decision about retiring at the election. I think he came to the view it would be difficult to represent his constituents against the background of all the publicity around this and the different interpretations of the facts of the matter. That was his decision.

Do you feel that you’ve let down your own standards — your own standards of credibility, your own integrity — through this?

Well, look, other people will make a decision about that. I’m satisfied—

No, but what do you feel? Do you feel like you’ve let yourself down?

I’m satisfied that in a difficult situation, knowing the personalities better than a lot of people, that this has been handled about as well as it could. It’s sad. No one comes out of this better than before the events occurred. It’s a shame, a real shame. And I feel that more than most people because I know them, because it was my electorate. The matters have now come through to this point where Todd Barclay’s leaving Parliament. My job as the prime minister is to deal with these issues effectively — everyone knows that employment disputes are messy — and get on with governing in the interests of New Zealand. That’s what we’re doing. That’s why we’ve got a National Party conference this week about an election in three months.

You said then no one’s come out of this, sort of, well, have they?

No, and that’s just because of the basic depth and bitterness of the dispute and the consequences that have flowed from that.

And do you include yourself in that, Prime Minister?

Well, look, it’s much better not to have to deal with these issues. I don’t see any benefit in it at all. But my responsibility as a leader is to make sure they are dealt with, whatever the imperfections of everyone involved, and get on with the job that the public have for us. Because, actually, the public aren’t that interested in our internal employment disputes; what they’re interested in is good government that provides good jobs, incomes and opportunities.

But they’re interested in your integrity, aren’t they?

Well, yes ,they are.

All right, that’s a good place to leave it. Thank you very much, Prime Minister.

Thank you.

 

 

Flavell: “Not aligned with Labour too much”

In an interview with The Nation yesterday Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell pointed out a number of differences between his party and Labour.

On immigration

Okay. The other week on The Hui, Shane Taurima said that we need to taihoa on immigration. So too many people were coming in, he said. What’s the right number in the Maori Party’s point of view, if 75,000 is too much? 

Flavell: From memory, I can’t exactly remember the amount that we set previously, but I think against the issues that have been raised around housing and those sorts of issues recently, we have to reset that. We haven’t come to a figure at this point in time.

Are you kind of aligned with Labour? You want it to go down to about 25,000 a year? 

Flavell: Not aligned with Labour too much.

The bus, and the one that’s coloured red

Well, okay, about that, Mr Flavell. The thing is if National’s going to govern without New Zealand First, it needs to bolster the numbers of its support parties, and your party, realistically, is the one that is a contender for getting extra seats. So what can they do for you — the National Party, to help you get more of your people over the line? 

Flavell: Well, that’s for them to consider.

Have you had a chat about it, though? 

Flavell: No, we haven’t had a chat about it, because that’s our responsibility to convince our people that we are the right option for them, against a party that continually throws them under the bus. You know, we’ve got to remember, in terms of our relationship—

Which party throws them under the bus? 

Flavell: The one that’s coloured in red.

On kaupapa

Okay, well, you’ve raised Labour there. Can you actually work with Labour in government? You say you can work with both parties, but you keep saying, and your people keep saying, that Labour throws Maori under the bus. So are you prepared to work with them in a government? 

Flavell: The practical situation is that we’ve expressed a desire to work with other people across the political spectrum, when whatever they’re offering fits our kaupapa. And if it does, that’s fine. But unfortunately, at this point in time, the leader of the Labour—

Well, does it? I’m confused here. Does Labour’s fit your kaupapa? 

Flavell: Now and again, but not too often, because clearly we vote differently from them. And the other part is that the leadership of the Labour Party—

So unlikely that you would be able to work with Labour, if the kaupapa doesn’t fit very often, as you just said. 

Flavell: That’s true. That’s true. And that’s declared. But the thing is that the leadership of the Labour Party have declared that they actually don’t want to work with us, which is a bit of a problem. So we’ll find out on election night when they need the numbers.

Unless Labour improve to a lot over their current poll ceiling of around 30% they will need at least NZ First or Greens to form a coalition, possibly both, or alternately one plus the Maori Party.

But at the moment Labour are campaigning strongly and at times bitterly against the Maori Party.

The Maori Party has a cooperation agreement with Hone Harawira and the Mana Party to improve their chances against Labour in September’s election.

The Nation:  Interview: David Seymour, Peter Dunne, Te Ururoa Flavell

Scoop: transcript

The Nation – support parties

This morning The Nation looks at the support parties and  their leaders, Peter Dunne, David Seymour and Te Ururoa Flavell – ” what have they got out of their support arrangements this term?”

And “What have National done well and badly this term?”

Name one area where the Government is excelling?

Peter Dunne – economic development, but now need to move on to social investment.

Te Ururoa Flavell agrees with that assessment.

David Seymour says they are excelling in education and partnership schools – which happens to be ACT policy.

To Flavell on poor Maori statistics – they want more and have huge expectations, but he says they need to influence from the side. Biggest achievement? Whanau Ora.

How many families have benefited? 11,000 in the last year.

Is National governing too far to the left? Seymour says yes, the budget is a good example,  and likens policy to Labour policy – and then switches to ACT’s tax policy promotion.

The people who benefit most from tax cuts will be the highest earners – Seymour concedes on that.

Dunne says he would address housing with a ‘national housing summit’. Just more talking?  He cites from yesterday in Auckland with a development blocked as an example that things aren’t working.

Seymour jumps in and says we have to free up more land for building on.

Is the euthanasia bill good timing or awkward? Seymour says it’s the best timing as he says that MPs are out of step with public opinion on it.

Flavell is not keen on the bill, leaning toward no but will be guided by his people.

Dunne says you have to respect the rights of those who are dying and their families, he says he is tending that way, but wants to hear what people say before making a decision on a vote (if he is still in parliament when it comes up).

On the medical cannabis bill he says he has problems with Julie Anne Genter’s bill but wants to talk with her about it.

Seymour supports the cannabis bill, Flavell supports it getting past the first reading so it can be looked at in detail with input from the public.

Seymour says there is no such things as an electorate deal, but expects an endorsement from National.

Dunne says people in Ohariu aren’t happy with “what has happened” and he is getting more support than before.

Flavell says that Labour keeps throwing Maori under a bus and doesn’t expect them to work with them, and that National has been prepared to work with them.  “The leadership of the Labour party have declared they don’t want to work with us, which is a problem”.

Seymour takes issue with the intro that said the Maori Party is most likely to increase their number of seats. He predicts they will repeat their 2008 performance (they got 5 seats).

Has Dunne got confidence he could work with Labour? To many policy differences so it is a remote chance.

Dunne says NZ First is likely to be disruptive.

Flavell says they are prepared to try and work with any party.

Seymour says there is no way he would work with NZ First after the election.

In the panel discussion Jane Clifton said that Seymour will just do what he is told, which is very condescending and ignorant from her.

The Nation – bed tax, Tillerson and candidates

A follow up from Labour’s no show on The Nation last week:

On The Nation’s “bias”, I’ve also heard that Labour spindoctors are briefing journalists against Lisa Owen. Esp after previous Twyford iv.

On The Nation this morning:

talks to Foreign Minister Gerry Brownlee on next week’s visit by Rex Tillerson, the NZ-US relationship,

Odd talking about this before Tillerson gets here unless it’s trying to promote an agenda.

Brownlee says they want to talk to Tillerson about prospects for the TPP.

On whether he’ll bring up Trump’s unpredictability: “I don’t think we’ll be raising issues of US political stability.”

Brownlee can’t comment on what is right or wrong for Trump over the Paris climate agreement, but reiterated wide support for the agreement still.

Owen tries to get Brownlee to admit to some sympathy for the view that many claims about climate change are made up. Instead he supports the main science and concerns – “”The world’s never seen anything like this before”.

He predicts many businesses in the US will stick with what they’re already doing to reduce carbon emissions.

Is Trump being wilfully ignorant re climate change? “He’s made a promise to US voters and sticking to it.”

Brownlee says discussions with Israel are “ongoing”.

Would Brownlee give up his portfolio to aid coalition negotiations? He says it’s up to the voters. It was

And we’ll meet some of the new faces running for Parliament

Some lucky candidates get selected for free promotion.

A good discussion, Shane Taurima (Maori Party, ex-Labour) going hammer and tongs with Kiri Allan (Labour). Taurima looks capable, Allan struggled to impress.

Nicola Willis came across well and is well informed.

was left in the middle of the crossfire for the first half and struggled to find her feet when finally given a say, but was good when speaking about something up her alley, the right of prisoners to vote.

talks to about his budget, the so-called bed tax and how Akl is going to pay for all that infrastructure

Goff says council’s legal advice indicates they’re on “very firm ground” re bed tax for hotels.

He says the budget has $2 billion on infrastructure, 40% of that on transport. The transport funding shortfall is as big as $7 billion because of higher than predicted population growth. “Lisa Owen suggests there’s a $4b shortfall for Akl transport – Goff says it’s actually $7b! Pressuring Govt to stump up cash”.

Goff says there’ll be an announcement next week on road pricing… he says it’ll be good news in the long term.

Goff actually came across very well generally, he may be better suited to being mayor than an MP, and especially than a party leader.

 

 

Labour pulled out of budget discussion

Labour were scheduled to discuss the budget on The Nation this morning but withdrew.

@TheNation confirmed “they agreed to an interview early in the week but pulled out yesterday morning”.

It at least seems odd.

The Nation: Twyford on housing

This morning on The Nation:

talks to about National’s plan to build houses in Auckland… is it enough?

I hope he is asked what land Labour plans to build their 50,000 houses on.

Twyford says if home buyers need a govt subsidy to buy a $650,000 house it’s not affordable.

Going about ‘affordable’ new houses. Most first home buyers don’t buy new houses, they start with older cheaper houses.

Twyford says Labour will build large developments around the railway line – he says Akl Council has identified good sites.

Twyford says a Labour govt will buy private land if necessary to build houses on.

Pushed on what land they will use Twyford evades and avoids and says they will work with the council and Maori. So no specific land yet.

Twyford says Labour will bring in highly skilled electricians, carpenters and plumbers to build Kiwibuild houses if they have to.

There is already a building labour shortage. If Labour’s houses are additional to the building al.ready under way and under pressure they will need to hugely increase the workforce.

The Nation: Interview: Phil Twyford

 

The Nation: Bill English

On The Nation this morning:

PM Bill English on Trump, TPP, North Korea, Housing & whether he will stay on past 2020 if he wins

Is the TPP dead or can it come back from the brink? talks to about that & much more from Hong Kong

On Donald Trump – New Zealand has to focus on the things they we can have an influence on. It would be better for NZ if the US could focus better on the important issues rather than domestic politics.

What happens if Trump passes on our intelligence info to another country? English says there’s no indication of a systemic problem.

Pm tells distractions around Trump mean US not focusing on economic issues.

Does English trust Trump? English says he trusts him to carry out his own domestic politics.

The US will always be welcome back into the TPP says English.

Will the TPP have to go back to Parliament? English can’t rule it out but says it’s unlikely it will require substantial change.

English says the Crown Building Programme is not a “rip off” of Labour’s Kiwibuild policy.

Is the Govt planning to build enough homes for first home buyers? He says those needing social housing are the top priority

Most first home buyers don’t start with a new house, they start with a cheaper older house.

English was asked if he intended to lead National through and contest the 2020 election: Yes.

But that’s pretty much a pointless question, politicians always say they intend to keep standing and keep leading, but circumstances can quickly change.

The Nation: Interview: Bill English

 

 

 

The Nation – Andrew Little

On The Nation this morning:

As Labour holds its annual congress this weekend, Newshub’s Political Editor Patrick Gower talks housing and immigration with leader Andrew Little and asks him how the party’s tracking with just… four months to go until the election.

First up is immigration. Little is still floundering on the number of immigrants he would cut. He keeps repeating “tens of thousands”, but when  pushed says he won’t back off one statement he made cutting to about 25,000, which is 45,000 less than the current 70,000.

Little says immigration needs to be cut by 10s of thousands… and the cuts can be made in work visas.

Thousands of student visas will be cut in Labour’s policy says Little.

“About managing it (immigration) carefully and properly and better”.

Kiwibuild “strongly committed to the 100,000” but then starts generalising again “building a lot of houses in a single year”.

Housing policy will be announced tomorrow.

Will Labour remove tax breaks for landlords? Little says he’ll announce the policy on that tomorrow.

A tourism levy “we are looking at that” and Little is “personally in favour” bust doesn’t have a figure in mind.

Social investment – they have got into Labour space? Gower pushes on this twice and both times Little launches into campaign spiel.

Mental health is a big issue – “everybody is saying”.

Little says the Govt’s social investment policy is not connecting with the lived experience of NZers.

The debacle of the last two weeks? It looks and feels like a debacle. Where is the discipline?

Will Te Reo be compulsory in the first term? No says Little.

Labour leader says National’s social investment policy is all about data and numbers not “lived experiences”.

Is time running out for Little? A diversion into spiel again.

What is Little’s one big idea for New Zealand? Little recites campaign mantra on housing again.

Do you want to be Prime Minister again? Little recites campaign mantra.

The Nation – time travel

I’m not sure how serious this item will be on The Nation this morning.

And is heading to NZ for in a few weeks… he talks to about time travel.

The Nation usually ends with “what’s in the news next week”. Perhaps they are investigating time travel so they can actually report the news before it happens.

James Gleick…

…is an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology. Recognized for his writing about complex subjects through the techniques of narrative nonfiction, he has been called “one of the great science writers of all time”.

His first book, Chaos: Making a New Science, reported the development of the new science of chaos and complexity. It made the Butterfly Effect a household word, introduced the Mandelbrot Set and fractal geometry to a broad audience, and sparked popular interest in the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gleick

Gleick has written a history of time travel.

He says it’s real but just in our heads.

It’s not possible to step in a machine to travel to a different time, either in the future or in the past.

The classic grandfather paradox – you couldn’t travel back in time and kill your grandfather. There are millions of similar paradoxes.

If you could would you go backward or forward in time? Gleick prefers forward but says some people would prefer go back due to pessimism about the future.

Worm holes are completely hypothetical speculation. Handy for science fiction workers but not much else.

The Nation – prisons or hospitals?

In the third in a series on mental health, crime and justice:

Prisons or hospitals?

This weekend we bring you the final part of Mike Wesley-Smith’s investigation into treatment of mental illness in the justice system.

In this episode we look at conditions behind the wire for inmates with mental health issues.

A ormer prisoner talks about there was yoga and belly dancing offered to her when she was inside but not counselling.

@TheNationNZ

Since 2007, 53 inmates in NZ prisons have taken their own lives and are 4x more likely to attempt suicide

The chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier says the number of suicides in prisons is a real concern to him.

Demands on the forensic services within prisons are growing as the muster increases.

Corrections deals with more people with mental health issues than any other institution and the Ombudsman has raised concerns about training.

Mental health, crime, prisons and hospital care combine to make a very difficult issue to deal with.