to now extend their supremacy. unless the season produces one final dramatic twist. dan roan, bbc news. time for a look at the weather. this programme continues on bbc one.

leaking pipes, leaking cash. and now parasites leaking into the water supply. can anyone fix the water industry?

the water companies were passed into the private sector debt free, but with the public now revolting against a tide of effluent in our rivers and seas — will they now have to pick up the bill? also tonight, the godfather of artificial intelligence geoffrey hinton has a warning for humanity... my guess is in between five and 20 years from now. there's a probability of about a half that we'll have to confront the problem of them trying to take over. and does that potentially lead to extinction level threats? potentially, yes. and the new members of generation rent — the growing number of pensioners stuck in the private rental sector. i expected that there would be consideration for when i was older. it seems that nobody cares.

theyjust don't care anymore. water should be a simple business. everyone needs to buy it. the companies that provide it all have regional monopolies. the key raw material is free. it should be the easiest buck around. but between mismanagement and misregulation, something has gone badly wrong, as events this week have shown. ben is here. it has been a bad week? it has been a bad week — it has been a bad week? it has been a bad week for— it has been a bad week? it has been a bad week for the water _ it has been a bad week? it has been a bad week for the water industry. l a bad week for the water industry. south west water has apologised for the fact a parasite has entered the local water network and made hundreds of people in the town of brixham ill and this has been seen as a failure of the first duty of a water company, to deliver safe drinking water, coming a few days after the bbc reported that united utilities had released millions of litres of raw sewage into lake windermere in the lake district. that was in february. the context

for both of the stories is claims of chronic underinvestment by water companies which have been privatised, maintaining their networks, which critics say is responsible for these kind of pollution events happening. it also comes in the context of a debate about whether privatisation of water in england has fundamentally failed and is partially behind some of these problems, that was put to the deputy chief executive of the association of water uk this week in association of water uk this week in a parliamentary hearing. when i speak to my colleagues in france or germany, you know, germany has 66,000 overflows which are broadly unmonitored. when i speak to my french colleagues, they cannot tell me how many overflows they've got. so i don't want us to think this is a uniquely english problem because itjust isn't. i take the point that it's an unusual ownership model. most countries do not have the system that we do. but i think that's a separate issue to the question of environmental performance. many

ma ny a nalysts many analysts would agree that privatisation does not necessarily mean you have problems with pollution but what critics say is they look at the dividends which have left the privatised english water system since 1989, £72 billion, and they say that cannot have helped when it comes to the infrastructure deficit in terms of spending. infrastructure deficit in terms of sendina. . ~ infrastructure deficit in terms of sendina. ., ~ i. infrastructure deficit in terms of sendina. . ~ ., infrastructure deficit in terms of sendina. . ~' ., ., i'm joined by the conservative mp, anthony mangnall, whose totnes constituency includes brixham. and in the studio by laura reineke of henley mermaids — a group of women who came together through their love of open water swimming and who campaigns for clean waterways. thanks forjoining us. explain how things have changed over the past couple of years in terms of your view? ~ ., , couple of years in terms of your view? ~ . , ., couple of years in terms of your view? ~ . , . . , , couple of years in terms of your view? ~ . , ., ., , , . view? we have seen a massive decline in the water — view? we have seen a massive decline in the water quality _ view? we have seen a massive decline in the water quality in _ view? we have seen a massive decline in the water quality in the _ view? we have seen a massive decline in the water quality in the river - in the water quality in the river thames where we swim, it has gone from clean and clear to having the

sewage some on the plants, it is very murky and brown.— sewage some on the plants, it is - very murky and brown.- that very murky and brown. visible? that is because sewage _ very murky and brown. visible? that is because sewage spills _ very murky and brown. visible? that is because sewage spills went - very murky and brown. visible? that is because sewage spills went up - very murky and brown. visible? that is because sewage spills went up by| is because sewage spills went up by 105% last year, 3.6 million hours of sewage dumped into the thames, but also the chemicals are the biggest problem, no inland waterways have a way of cleaning off the chemicals, 350,000 regulated chemicals go into the waterways through some form. this is a massive problem. henge the waterways through some form. this is a massive problem. have you had to change _ this is a massive problem. have you had to change the _ this is a massive problem. have you had to change the way _ this is a massive problem. have you had to change the way that - this is a massive problem. have you had to change the way that you - had to change the way that you interact? i had to change the way that you interact? . , , ,., ., , interact? i have been very poorly four times _ interact? i have been very poorly four times and _ interact? i have been very poorly four times and what _ interact? i have been very poorly four times and what we - interact? i have been very poorly four times and what we do - interact? i have been very poorly four times and what we do now. interact? i have been very poorly| four times and what we do now is interact? i have been very poorly - four times and what we do now is we check the sewage map before we swim, so we are informed about where is best to swim and where isn't and sometimes we have to go to a lake thatis sometimes we have to go to a lake that is clean or the swimming pool. thanks forjoining us, anthony, what is the situation in brixham tonight? pretty serious in terms of the people impacted?—

pretty serious in terms of the ---eoleimacted? . , , ., , people impacted? incredibly serious, and utterly contemptible _ people impacted? incredibly serious, and utterly contemptible how- people impacted? incredibly serious, and utterly contemptible how south i and utterly contemptible how south west water has behaved and the week started _ west water has behaved and the week started with residents raising their concerns_ started with residents raising their concerns around the water they were drinking _ concerns around the water they were drinking from a taste perspective and then a — drinking from a taste perspective and then a number of people revealed they were _ and then a number of people revealed they were quite seriously ill, one of which — they were quite seriously ill, one of which has recently had to go to hospitat — of which has recently had to go to hospital. south west water denied this was_ hospital. south west water denied this was anything to do with them, only for— this was anything to do with them, only for them to say 24—hour slater that it _ only for them to say 24—hour slater that it was — only for them to say 24—hour slater that it was to do with them because of what _ that it was to do with them because of what was in the water —— 24 hours later _ of what was in the water —— 24 hours later it _ of what was in the water —— 24 hours later it has — of what was in the water —— 24 hours later. it has been a disastrous week for the _ later. it has been a disastrous week for the water companies and this has -ot for the water companies and this has got to— for the water companies and this has got to he _ for the water companies and this has got to be addressed. you for the water companies and this has got to be addressed.— got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry _ got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry but — got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry but it _ got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry but it seems - got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry but it seems to - got to be addressed. you are calling for an inquiry but it seems to be - for an inquiry but it seems to be something to do with the farm run—off, that is the suspect? certainly not as far as i'm concerned, it is an air vent that is sunposediy— concerned, it is an air vent that is supposedly cracked or broken that has perhaps let a contaminated source — has perhaps let a contaminated source into the water, which has led to it, _ source into the water, which has led to it. we _ source into the water, which has led to it, we don't know how that has

come _ to it, we don't know how that has come about, we are waiting to hear. i'm come about, we are waiting to hear. i'rn calling _ come about, we are waiting to hear. i'm calling foran come about, we are waiting to hear. i'm calling for an inquiry but all politicians _ i'm calling for an inquiry but all politicians call for inquiries, the people — politicians call for inquiries, the people of brixham are rightly very angry— people of brixham are rightly very angry and — people of brixham are rightly very angry and they are let down and they have a _ angry and they are let down and they have a huge — angry and they are let down and they have a huge reservation as we heard from your— have a huge reservation as we heard from your fellow guest, about the water— from your fellow guest, about the water network and the quality of drinking — water network and the quality of drinking water and that is an unacceptable state. you have defended _ unacceptable state. you have defended privatisation - unacceptable state. you have defended privatisation beforei unacceptable state. you have - defended privatisation before fairly recently, is it a system problem rather than just a specific problem with the air vent in your constituency? is privatisation the problem? i constituency? is privatisation the roblem? ., �* ,, ., constituency? is privatisation the roblem? ,, ., , , problem? i don't know because i don't know _ problem? i don't know because i don't know what _ problem? i don't know because i don't know what has _ problem? i don't know because i don't know what has caused - problem? i don't know because i don't know what has caused the | problem? i don't know because i - don't know what has caused the break in the _ don't know what has caused the break in the system on this issue but i make _ in the system on this issue but i make the — in the system on this issue but i make the point iran privatisation, if you _ make the point iran privatisation, if you nationalise it, you go to a system — if you nationalise it, you go to a system where you put the costs back onto the _ system where you put the costs back onto the taxpayer and i think you need _ onto the taxpayer and i think you need proper regulation to get into the place — need proper regulation to get into the place where water companies do what they— the place where water companies do what they should be doing, upgraded

the systems, and not passing the cost onto— the systems, and not passing the cost onto the consumer, but that is what _ cost onto the consumer, but that is what they— cost onto the consumer, but that is what they are doing at the moment. the regulator needs to have the teeth— the regulator needs to have the teeth to — the regulator needs to have the teeth to deal with this and the environment act that we passed a few years ago. _ environment act that we passed a few years ago, that also needs to implement those policies of stopping dividend _ implement those policies of stopping dividend payments and bonus payments and revoking licences and sending executives — and revoking licences and sending executives to jail if they do not -et executives to jail if they do not get things right. the measures are there _ get things right. the measures are there and — get things right. the measures are there and we have to use them but tonight— there and we have to use them but tonight i_ there and we have to use them but tonight i am sitting here not far out of— tonight i am sitting here not far out of brixham concerned about a town _ out of brixham concerned about a town that — out of brixham concerned about a town that does not have access to water _ town that does not have access to water. ., ., town that does not have access to water. . ., ., ., ., , water. laura, one of the solutions we hear about _ water. laura, one of the solutions we hear about is _ water. laura, one of the solutions we hear about is essentially, - water. laura, one of the solutions| we hear about is essentially, there not enough money in the system and the bills have got to go up, in order to provide the cleanliness to the areas that you have talked about so vividly, do you accept everyone has got to pay higher bills?- has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and _ has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and i _ has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and i pay _ has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and i pay £36 _ has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and i pay £36 a _ has got to pay higher bills? water is cheap and i pay £36 a month i has got to pay higher bills? are is cheap and i pay £36 a month for my water, and the point is that water is a shared resource and every living thing on the planet has to have water to survive and it should

not be owned by foreign investors and run by mismanaged water companies, it should be run by a well—managed group of people who understand what is happening. they have made it complex in order to make money and that is the point. you accept that paying a bit more is acceptable for individuals? but we have already paid, that is part of the problem and the money has been spent. anthony, you are the politician, and i know you are representing your constituency, but may your party could have done more as it has been in powerfor 14 years, so can you be honest with the public and say they will have to pay substantially more if they want this to improve? the substantially more if they want this to improve?— to improve? the point about privatisation _ to improve? the point about privatisation is _ to improve? the point about privatisation is that - to improve? the point about privatisation is that this - to improve? the point about privatisation is that this has | to improve? the point about i privatisation is that this has led to investment in the network, and yes, dividends have been paid out, and the _ yes, dividends have been paid out, and the mismanagement is staggering, which is _ and the mismanagement is staggering, which is why we have these problems with overpaid executives across the

country _ with overpaid executives across the country who are getting performance linked _ country who are getting performance linked pay... not country who are getting performance linked paym— linked pay... not a single reservoir has been built _ linked pay... not a single reservoir has been built since _ linked pay... not a single reservoir has been built since privatisation. l has been built since privatisation. and they have paid more in dividends than they have put back into the infrastructure. this than they have put back into the infrastructure.— infrastructure. this is the point i am making _ infrastructure. this is the point i am making which _ infrastructure. this is the point i am making which is _ infrastructure. this is the point i am making which is when - infrastructure. this is the point i am making which is when you i infrastructure. this is the point i i am making which is when you look at the management, it is very poor so we need _ the management, it is very poor so we need to— the management, it is very poor so we need to make sure the regulator is working _ we need to make sure the regulator is working and we need to make sure the investment of 100 billion that the investment of100 billion that the water— the investment of 100 billion that the water companies are proposing between _ the water companies are proposing between 25 and 2030, it is expedited and delivered and people can see the realistic— and delivered and people can see the realistic changes that are needed within— realistic changes that are needed within our— realistic changes that are needed within our waterways. gn realistic changes that are needed within our waterways.— within our waterways. on bills, cuickl , within our waterways. on bills, quickly. do _ within our waterways. on bills, quickly. do you _ within our waterways. on bills, quickly, do you accept - within our waterways. on bills, quickly, do you accept they i within our waterways. on bills, j quickly, do you accept they will within our waterways. on bills, i quickly, do you accept they will go up? quickly, do you accept they will go u? . ., , . ., , quickly, do you accept they will go u-? ~ . , . , up? water is cheaper but we will have to have _ up? water is cheaper but we will have to have that _ up? water is cheaper but we will have to have that conversation, l up? water is cheaper but we will i have to have that conversation, but at the _ have to have that conversation, but at the moment, while the water network— at the moment, while the water network is — at the moment, while the water network is so poorly orchestrated, i don't _ network is so poorly orchestrated, i don't think— network is so poorly orchestrated, i don't think the costs should be passed — don't think the costs should be passed back onto the british public. we will— passed back onto the british public. we will leave that there are now. it has not been a great week but the

next week could be critical? the water regulator _ next week could be critical? tue: water regulator is next week could be critical? t'te: water regulator is going next week could be critical? tt2 water regulator is going to decide how much the water companies are going to be allowed to invest and how much they can charge us for the water over the next five years and we expect a decision on the 12th of june but it may come a bit earlier. maybe next week. the implications for thames water, this giant south east water company which has been in financial difficulties, they are super important consequences of the meeting, next week for that company, because if thames water does not see its own financial plans accepted by the regulator and the investors walk away, that is how it could end up in away, that is how it could end up in a temporary nationalisation, special administration regime. thames water is not the only water company in england and wales which has financial stress and we can have a look at a chart which shows that thames water, 77% debt as a share of

total assets but a lot of other companies have high debt. three other companies have been identified by the water regulator as to watch as well. including southern water and south—east water. some important other contacts because the regulator has indicated its target for maximum debt levels for the water companies will be going down to the yellow dotted line just 55%, will be going down to the yellow dotted linejust 55%, and will be going down to the yellow dotted line just 55%, and they are all above that, so getting back down to that will be financially painful, and if thames water goes into special administration, that could create a financial contagion effect that could affect other investors in other water companies in a similar way and you could get problems spreading. it is in the interests of investors to paint that picture so they get their plans accepted but it is fair to say that the risk of financial problems for the water companies as a whole and the sector as a whole is still increasing. taste

as a whole is still increasing. we will keep an _ as a whole is still increasing. we will keep an eye on that next week. thank you very much for that. the man many in the industry call the godfather of artificial intelligence is worried the technology is becoming too powerful for humanity's own good. computer scientist geoffrey hinton quit his role at google last year so he could speak freely about what he believes are some of the technology's dangers. we'll hearfrom him in a moment, but let's first recap where we are. if you start thinking that humans are bad, then the natural conclusion is humans should die out. if ai gets programmed by the extinctionists, its utility function will be the extinction of humanity. elon musk isn't renowned for his cautious approach to technology. if he's worried, perhaps we all should be. a recent survey suggested more than half of researchers give ai at least a 5% chance of causing extremely bad outcomes — like human extinction. but others say those apocalyptic fears are overblown for headlines.

this week, openai launched their latest chatgpt and the worst it appeared to do was be a bit sarcastic. ohhh, that sounds just amazing. i'm so excited for this. or whatever. i'll be back. but between terminator and alexa, there's a lot of middle ground to worry about. we have elections in both the uk and us this year and ai bad actors are on the campaign trail. will voters be deceived by fake news? how is it you can't say one sentence during a speech without mumbling, but somehow you're blasting me with these big zingers? that's a good question, prison boy. that's a good question, new findings from the international monetary fund show that almost 40% of global employment is exposed to ai redundancy. as many as eight million ukjobs are at risk in what's been dubbed a jobs apocalypse. so which careers are future—proofed?

actors and screenwriters have already been on the picket line, but almost every profession is vulnerable. should your child be aspiring to a career in law or medicine or journalism? i will work tirelessly to keep you informed as texts will be typed into my system uninterrupted. none of those sound like safe bets in the year 2050. perhaps everyone should retrain as plumbers. well, all this comes with another safety summit around ai in seoul next week and i began by asking geoffrey hinton whether he thought the world is getting to grips with this issue or if he is as concerned as ever. i'm still as concerned as i have been, but i'm very pleased that the world is beginning to take it seriously. so in particular, they're beginning to take the existential threat seriously, that these things will get smarter than us and we have to worry about whether they'll want to take control away from us. that's something we should think seriously about, and people now take that seriously. a few years ago, they thought it was just science fiction. and from your perspective, from having worked at the top of this, having developed some

of the theories underpinning all of this explosion in al that we're seeing, that existential threat is real? yes. so some people think these things don't really understand — they're very different from us. they're just using some statistical tricks. that's not the case. these big language models, for example, the early ones were developed as a theory of how the brain understands language. they're the best theory you've currently got of how the brain understands language. we don't understand either how they work or how the brain works in detail, but we think probably they work in fairly similar ways. what is it that's triggered your concern? it's been a combination of two things. so playing with the large chatbots, particularly one of google before gpt4, but also with gpt4, they�* re clearly very competent, they clearly understand a lot. they have a lot more knowledge than any person. they're like a not very good expert at more or less everything. so that was one worry. and a second was coming to understand the way in which they're a superior

form of intelligence, because you can make many copies of the same neural network — each copy can look at a different bit of data and then they can all share what they learned. so imagine if we had 10,000 people, they could all go off and do a degree in something. they could share what they learned efficiently, and then we'd all have 10,000 degrees. we'd know a lot then. we can't share knowledge nearly as efficiently as different copies of the same neural network. ok, so the key concern here is that it could exceed human intelligence, indeed, the mass of human intelligence. very few of the experts are in doubt about that. well, almost everybody i know who's an expert on al believes that they will exceed human intelligence. it's just a question of when. and at that point, it's really quite difficult to control them. well, we don't know. we've never dealt with something like this before. there's a few experts, like my friend yann lecun, who think it'll be no problem — we'll give them the goals,

it'll be no problem, they'll do what we say. they'll be subservient to us. there's other experts who think absolutely they'll take control. given this big spectrum of opinions, i think it's wise to be cautious. i think there's a chance they'll take control and it's a significant chance. it's not like 1%, it's much more. could they not be contained in certain areas? i don't know, scientific research, but not, for example, the armed forces? maybe. but actually, if you look at all the current legislation, including the european legislation, and there's a little clause in all of it that says that none of this applies to military applications. governments aren't willing to restrict their own uses of it for defence. i mean, there's been some evidence, even in current conflicts of the use of ai in generating thousands and thousands of targets. yes. and that's happened since you started warning about al. is that the sort of pathway that you're concerned about? i mean, that's the thin end of the wedge. what i'm most concerned about is when these things can autonomously make the decision

to kill people. so, robot soldiers. yeah. and drones and the like. and maybe we can get something like geneva conventions to regulate them, but i don't think that's going to happen until after very nasty things have happened. and there's an analogy here with the manhattan project and with oppenheimer, which is if we restrain ourselves from military use in the g7 advanced democracies, what's going on in china, what's going on in russia? yes, it has to be an international agreement. but if you look at chemical weapons, the international agreement for chemical weapons has worked quite well. i mean, do you have any sense of whether the shackles are off in a place like russia? well, putin said some years ago that whoever controls ai controls the world. so i imagine they're working very hard. fortunately, the west is probably well ahead of them in research. we're probably still slightly ahead of china, but china is putting more resources in. and so in terms of military uses of ai, i think

there's going to be a race. it sounds very theoretical, but this argument, this thread of argument, if you follow it, you really are quite worried about extinction—level events. so we should distinguish these different risks. the risk of using ai for autonomous lethal weapons doesn't depend on al being smarter than us. that's a quite separate risk from the risk that the ai itself will go rogue and try and take over. i'm worried about both things. the autonomous weapons is clearly going to come. whether ai goes rogue and tries to take over is something we may be able to control or we may not — we don't know. and so at this point, before it's more in charge than us, we should be putting huge resources into seeing whether we are going to be able to control it. what sort of society do you see evolving? which jobs will still be here? yes, i'm very worried about al taking over lots of mundane jobs, and that should be a good thing. it's going to lead to a big increase in productivity,

which leads to a big increase in wealth. and if that wealth was equally distributed, that would be great. but it's not going to be. in the systems we live in, that wealth is going to go to the rich and not to the people whose jobs get lost. and that's going to be very bad for society, i believe. so it's going to increase the gap between rich and poor, which increases the chances of right—wing populists getting elected. so to be clear, you think that the societal impacts from the changes in jobs could be so profound that we may need to rethink the politics of, i don't know, the benefit system, inequality, universal basic income? yes, i certainly believe in universal basic income. i don't think that's enough, though, because a lot of people get their self—respect from the job they do. and if you put everybody on universal basic income, that solves the problem of them starving and not being able to pay the rent, but it doesn't solve the self—respect problem. so, what, you just try to...

the government needs to get... i mean, it's not how we do things in britain. you know, we tend to sort of stand back and let the economy decide the winners and losers. yes, actually, i was consulted by people in downing street and i advised them that universal basic income was a good idea. and this is, i mean, you said 10% to 20% risk of them taking over. are you more certain that this is going to have to be addressed in the next five years, the next parliament perhaps? my guess is in between five and 20 years from now, there's a probability of about a half that we'll have to confront the problem of them trying to take over. are you impressed by the efforts of governments so far to try and rein this in? i'm impressed by the fact that they're beginning to take it seriously. i'm unimpressed by the fact that none of them is willing to regulate military uses. and i'm unimpressed by the fact that most of the regulations have no teeth. do you think that the tech companies are letting down their guard on safety because they need to be the winner in this race for al?

i don't know about the tech companies in general. i know quite a lot about google because i used to work there. google was very concerned about these issues and google didn't release the big chatbots. it was concerned about its reputation if they told lies. but as soon as openai went into business with microsoft and microsoft put chatbots into bing, google had no choice. so i think the competition is going to cause these things to be developed rapidly and the competition means that they won't put enough effort into safety. people, parents talk to their children, give them advice on the future of the economy — whatjobs they should do, what degrees that they should do. it seems like the world's being thrown up in the air by this, by the world that you're describing. what would you advise somebody to study now to kind of surf this wave? i don't know, because it's clear that a lot of a lot of mid—level intellectualjobs are going to disappear. if you ask which jobs are safe,

my best bet about a job that's safe is plumbing. because these things aren't yet very good at physical manipulation. that'll be probably be the last thing they're very good at. and so i think plumbing is safe for quite a long time. driving? not driving, no. you know, that's that's hopeless. that's i mean, that's been slow. journalist? journalism might last a little bit longer, but i think these things are going to be pretty good journalists quite soon, and probably quite good interviewers, too. 0k! well... heaven forbid. the image of renters is often one of people in their 20s and 30s saving up for a deposit to buy their own home. but as the population ages, there is a growing cohort of older renters who will struggle to afford their rent as they retire and their income falls. it is a trend that represents a social and potentially a financial challenge to society. yasminara khan travelled to cornwall to find out more. i love the beaches.

i love walking the dog on the beach. i like the history of it. the whole feel of cornwall, it's in my blood. and i love living here. chris may's 69, an raf veteran and pensioner who still works to help pay the rent on his small room in newquay, where he lives with his dog. it's a nightmare. when i was under eviction notice, the closest i ever came on the social housing list for any property was 30. normally i'm about 150 on the list. i'm lucky enough to have found a place that i can stay with my dog, but it's temporary. but it's also counted against me on the council. i have to start at square one again.

and to thinking, why? i have lived here all my life except for my service in the raf. cornwall has an older than average population, but it's notjust here that the housing market is changing. since the turn of the millennium, the growth in home ownership has stalled. the age at which people can afford to buy for the first time has risen, and the number of english households living in private rented accommodation has grown by a fifth over a decade. but the number of households over the age of 55 renting privately has increased much more rapidly — up by 71% over the same time. morgan vine is head of policy at the london based charity independent age, who have been compiling research on what they call the hidden renters over the age of 65.

we've got a lot of people in their 405, 50s, 60s, who are getting to later life and they don't own a property, they don't have a full state pension. they�* re living hand—to—mouth. so it's really, really important that people in that situation get all the support they can. many people assume that everybody passed state pension age is living mortgage free with high savings, going on luxury cruises. we know that's not true. there are 2 million older people living in poverty across the uk and renters are often a completely hidden group. the people that we speak to who call the independent age helpline, the renters, tell us that they feel completely invisible, not seen, and like it's thought that they don't even exist. i'm worried because i've got a cat and this is silly old woman stuff but he's very important to me. he's my companion. and, you know, one of my worries is what would become of him. you know, iwouldn't want to go to a place where i'd have to lose him. 74—year—old susan curtis has been

served with notice on the private rented flat she's lived in in romford for 12 years. even though she's in receipt of housing benefit, it won't cover another flat in the private sector, so she now has to appeal to the local council for temporary accommodation until something more permanent can be found. my landlady has applied for a possession order which will then bring bailiffs and it's not until that point that the local council will actually provide me with temporary accommodation or a hostel or maybe, you know, a permanent place. does the idea of going into temporary accommodation scare you? yes, it does. do you feel like you're being listened to? do you feel like that you're being heard at all? no, ifeel... i feel isolated and i feel sort of unworthy of any real care because

it'sjust not there. do you think that's because of your age? yes. alistair young is the chief executive of a housing association in cornwall. he thinks the growth in the number of older renters in the private sector should concern us all. it's expensive for us as a country as well because with that expensive rent, particularly as they get to pension age, it's actually housing benefit that ends up soaking up the impact of that. it's roughly £6 billion a year and over the next ten to 20 years, it's forecast that the number of people in retirement age, living in private rental, will double. and so it's a looming issue, an absolute ticking time bomb. we really need a sensible, long term strategy from government to get to grips with it. the growing number of private renters beyond normal retirement age is a challenge for future governments as they are forced

to pick up those housing costs.