Transcription
We are at risk of a lost generation. It's one thing to be ignorant about a problem. It's quite another to be neglectful. And I'm sad to say that for far too long in our country, the NEET crisis has been swept under the carpet.
This is, you know, I think a real sobering report. Is this, you know, what what could end up defining him? Well, I think it's a very powerful mission because it's all about the future and there are reasons to take this more urgently today than in the past. It may be a defining mission.
Don't give up on employment. Obviously, the rejection is a is a big thing and obviously it's not it's not particularly great for young people to be honest. So, is this it? The moment of change for a so-called lost generation? The moment this government sets out its guiding mission because it hasn't always been about young people.
With these measures, we are on course to abolish pensioner poverty in our country. We have tried to help pensioners uh live out their lives in dignity and security. We protected the basic state pension with the triple lock.
And look, I should say Gordon Brown in particular has done a lot on child poverty. And it's not about pitting old against young, but it is about priorities. And the assumption has been pensioners more likely to vote and therefore politically prioritized in some way. Yesterday Tony Blair was calling on the prime minister to have a governing purpose. Today another new Labour grande says the next generation should be it.
Today the choice has to be to make the next generation the focus of our politics, our efforts, our resources. Building a better future for the next generation can be the cause around which the whole country can unite.
And then he said this to Sky's Rob Palk. Look, it's very striking that there's a triple lock for old people, but there's no equivalent for for younger people.
The more than 1 million 16 to 24 year olds not in employment, educational training is a story that gets to the core of why people say the country isn't working. Long-term state failings in education, welfare, health, the labor market, the death of the Saturday job. There are half as many hospitality jobs right now than there were four years ago. How do you incentivize an employer to take a gamble on a young person? It is a tragedy of wasted potential. Look at this. We used to be in line with the EU average. Now we're the outlier. Only Romania has a higher percentage of young people in the same situation. And the other key thing is that the radical reset Alan Milburn talks about would need bold leadership authority. And let's face it, the prime minister doesn't have a total grip of his party right now and might not even be charged. Let's see by the time we get to the recommendations in September.
Well, today's report finds that so-called NEETs are costing the country £125 billion pounds a year. More than four in five of them do want to find a job, but we're told they face a crisis of opportunity caused by institutional failure. The review was carried out by former Labour Minister Alan Milburn, who's been speaking to our political correspondent Rob Palk.
Baking now for decades, James and his family teach younger people to make bread in their North London shop. But he says jobs have changed since he first arrived here in the 60s. I came here on a Thursday and next day I went out and I had a job for Monday because there were many many vacancies. There were six, seven jobs for every person. And it's not like that anymore. No. A lot of the businesses incur a lot of costs because of rising fuel or whatever and are unable to hire young people.
The end of the entry-level Saturday job is one reason pinpointed by the former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn for rising levels of so-called NEETs. Young people not in education, employment or training. For far too long in our country, the NEET crisis has been swept under the carpet. Not any longer. This review exists because today Britain faces a genuine generational fault line. We do not just have a chronic problem. It is getting worse, not getting better, and we have neither a system or a plan to deal with it.
This on the day the number of NEETs crossed 1 million for the first time since 2013. The report warns of a further quarter of a million within 5 years. Educational failures, the setup of welfare and health care are also blamed for failing to adapt to the more complex needs of young people today. But is the Starmer government making things worse given tax rises and minimum wage hikes were flagged as barriers to taking on new staff?
This is a long-standing long-term problem. It's been going on for many years. It's complicated and complex as Alan Milburn makes clear. There's no single uh uh thing that you can say that's the reason. Um so obviously we will now work with Alan on what more needs to be done.
In Nottingham, there was little optimism about the future. I don't have like a specific job that I want, but I would do like any work, any kind of work. It's extremely hard to find a job nowadays, especially like finding a secure one where it's actually like stable and you're going to be like working there for a while. It's strongly difficult for young people, I think, especially around 18 to 21 and obviously it's not only a Nottingham thing, but it's national.
A situation that won't be turned around quickly. Adam Milburn says he's been talking to all parties to try and get buy-in from across Westminster. But with some political leaders prioritizing benefit cuts and others talking more about employment and health support, getting consensus could be tough, especially in these unstable political times. Recommendations will come in the autumn. A tilt in focus from the old to the young possibly on the cards. You know, do politicians basically need to be braver and say, "No, we're going to review pensioner welfare and we're going to have our own version of the triple lock equivalent in scope anyway for young people."
Well, all I'd say at this stage is look, it's very striking that there's a triple lock for old people, but there's no equivalent for for younger people. We have got to make this a priority for action. And that is what I'm urging of employers as much as I'm urging of government ministers. This is not just going to be solved by public policy. This is going to have to be solved on the demand side. The employers who employ young people as well as on the supply side.
Back in North London, James says he worries for the future. When when people like me and my age are gone, there's actually nobody left to pick up the flag and carry on. You know, they're they're letting it go and it's a shame. The consequences now clear. Decisions today carrying the weight of futures to come. Rob Palk, Sky News in North London.
Well, as you can see, our panel here, former science secretary Michelle Donelan and former Labour Employment Minister Caroline Flint are on the sofa with me tonight. And I should just be clear, this is still the Kathy Newman show, but Kathy is off for she'll be back next week. So, uh, it's with me, Ally. Um, thank you for being here. And it's great because you both got really relevant briefs. Um, Caroline, let's start with you. I mean, it's we've heard all about the problems. We've heard a lot from Alan Milburn. Do you think this government can actually grip this?
Well, I think not just the government have to grip this. I think, you know, the opposition parties have to grip it as well because it is totally in the national interest that we find some really um solutions that can deal with where what Alan has said is most of the young people he's met really want to work. They really, really do, but they're finding themselves just cut out of a labor market that isn't suited to their needs. But also some of the problems some of these young people face. You know, given that children today and young people spend more years in education than ever before, they're not being given the skills or the opportunities to have qualifications that are are fit for the modern working world. So, I think it is I think as this isn't about just a few policies. This is an event changing report that we have to think about here. We have to really, really concentrate on not only for the young people who are I don't even like that term about you know not in education not in employment not in training I would rather call it need education employment and training and that tips it around to be more positive about what we actually have to do and he's and I think this is a I think this is going to be a groundbreaking not only this report but with his report coming in September with recommendations all politicians government and outside government need to wake up.
I guess, you know, is a lot of what is talking about skills, training and so on. I mean, it's all going to face to face meetings. These things they cost money, right?
Yeah. But I think this report really says that we are failing this generation and more than that because this generation is going to um be the ones that have to prop up the future generation. That's how our our pension and social security system works. So we're shoring up real long-term problems as well as the moral issues around this. And I think there's three takeaways for me. One, we have a big cultural problem. The report is saying that we're spending 25 times more on benefits than we are on actually support to get people into employment, which is completely wrong. We're not sending the right message out or the right ethos out. The second point is we've got to get our act together when it comes to education. If you look at what countries like the Middle East are doing, they've injected AI into the curriculum. We need to be making sure that we are really focusing on those human-centric skills. Be really important um when AI is is more mainstream. Also that we are focusing on how you apply your skills and that we can reskill and upskill. And then thirdly, we do have to be honest about the fact that this government is actively damaging young people's opportunities. And I take the point that this is a long-term issue that's happened over many decades. However, even Milburn um accepts that the regulatory environment and increase in taxation has meant that it is just unaffordable for businesses to take a gamble on young people and to train them up. We pause that thought because we're going to come back to you, I promise. Um but on that, you um challenged the government. Well, a little earlier I did speak to Pat McFadden, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who commissioned the Milburn Report. Let's have a listen.
Pat McFadden, thanks so much for coming in. I mean, we've heard a lot today about the scale of the problem. You're the guy with the job of fixing it. How how you feeling?
Well, uh, I think today's report is really important. It's a really powerful piece of work. I'm enormously grateful to Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, for doing it. And I think what he's outlined is something that should be a huge priority for the country, a national cause. We have a million young people not in education, employment, or training. It's not a problem that arrived today or yesterday. It's been with us for a long time, but it's been getting worse in recent years. So, I think we need to respond to that uh as a government in a big way. Uh but also as a country uh to take this seriously and to give young people a chance to show us what they can do. I think that's a good cause for the country. Uh and it will change human lives in a really positive way if we take it seriously.
You talk about it being, you know, calls for the country. Do you think this is going to end up being the kind of driving mission of this government because there are those that say that this prime minister needs a driving mission. Is this, you know, what what could end up defining him?
Well, I think it's a very powerful mission because it's all about the future and there are reasons to take this more urgently today than in the past. It may be a defining mission. And let me give you three. There's a big technological challenge coming with the labor market. It's already started. So, we need to take it seriously for that reason. Net migration is falling compared to recent years. So that old cry, why don't we do more to train our own people has become more urgent. And there's also a demographic challenge where as an aging society, we simply can't afford to have a million young people not contributing to the labor market. So although this is a longstanding problem, I think there are real reasons today why we need to treat it with more urgency.
On the labor market. You know, part of that and Alan Milburn has admitted this is about government policies, things like the minimum wage, national insurance. You know, do you accept that?
Businesses will always raise their costs whether it's wages, taxes, regulations and so on. But part of that is down to government policy. These, you know, we've taken a decision to increase the minimum wage. We want people to have more money in their pockets. But if it was all down to the minimum wage, this wouldn't be a problem that's been with us for many years. If you take retail, for example. 650,000 retail jobs disappeared between 2017 and 2022 because of the way we shop. We shop in a completely different way. So there are deep structural things going on. In fact, since the financial crash, youth employment has never in a single year reached the levels it was before that financial crash. So it's a long-term problem.
And you're going to crack on with those, you know, the the government policies that Alan Milburn today admitted have caused problems.
Well, I'll tell you the government policies we are pursuing on this because we've already started to respond to this in recent months. Uh I'm talking about, you know, NEETs for the hospitality sector. I mean, they've said that that is stopping them hiring. For example, we have an existing tax break where there are no employers' National Insurance paid for employees under the age of 21. Frankly, I think that's not well enough known about in this discussion. But on top of that, from next month, we will pay businesses a hiring incentive of £3,000 if they take on a young person who's been unemployed for six months or more. From the autumn, we will change the apprenticeship system and give small businesses a hiring bonus of £2,000 for taking on a young apprentice and pay further costs for small businesses in training. And for the long-term youth unemployed, uh, we will also step in and offer subsidized work. So already we are responding to this long-term problem, but I do think we'll probably have to do even more in the future. Sorry, there's so much to get through. So, we're going to move on to welfare, which obviously is your brief as well. Um, you tried and failed to bring down the welfare bill. What's going to be different this time?
Well, acting on youth unemployment is welfare reform. And I think it's the best form of welfare reform because there's another fact that.
What do you mean by that?
By that, I mean if we can act early, we can both change lives and save a lot of money. Let me give you a startling fact. If someone signs on uh at age 20 on long-term sickness benefits, they are more likely to celebrate their 30th birthday and still be on that benefit than to have joy enjoyed a a steady job in between. So.
With that, you know, does come down bringing down the welfare bill.
Exactly. So every young person who we can divert from that path and get into productive work, it will save the state about a million pounds uh for that young person. It will also benefit them in their lifetime earnings by about another million.
What will it take to bring down that that welfare bill?
Well, every young person is worth a million pounds. So that can add up quickly if we can get this right and make the investment where it really needs to be made. But we start from next month. We start from June with the hiring incentives and we go from there. But I want to run it this hard because it's a huge priority for the country. I think it is a progressive cause for the country and as the party of Labour, the party of work, it should be a huge priority for my party.
Is there going to be a degree of conditionality? You know, if you don't work, you won't get benefits.
Well, there already is. Um, will there be more? There is there is conditionality in the system. In fact, Alan talked about this today. Um, very often we're so focused on the conditionality, we're maybe not giving the right support. So, conditionality is and will be an essential part of the welfare system. Is that what you got wrong last time? You know, the messaging that it was about bringing down the welfare bill, not about helping people.
Look, I I I don't want to go over old ground. Uh my view as the Secretary of State for this is that the best form of welfare reform is to change the question the system asks from what benefit are you entitled to to how do we help you change your life? And that means putting work and opportunity at the heart of the system. As I've put it, changing from welfare state to working state. And that's what every change that we bring in in response to this report will be all about.
Okay, let's talk about social media because this was one of the problems that was identified by Alan Milburn is effectively saying, you know, this rewiring young people's brains, making them more anxious. Um, it looks like the way we're heading is a social media ban for under 16s. Do you do you think that's right?
Well, we just finished a consultation uh on this. Uh we'll be responding to it soon, but I think there's a growing body of opinion that thinks something needs to be done uh in this area about screen time, about phone addiction, about what that might be doing to young people. Uh and, you know, we're very protective of young people in the outdoor physical world. Are we protective enough in the digital world? I think there's a growing body of opinion that says we may have got the balance between those two things wrong and therefore we may have to act but I don't want to preempt decisions. You know, are you talking about a ban?
Well, I don't want to preempt decisions that have to be made across government and not just by me but if I give you an honest answer but what I think the view in parliament is. I think opinion is heading towards some kind of restriction.
Okay, thank you. Um, the the thing about all this is it feels like, you know, it's been called a system-wide reset. It's going to take grip. It's going to take authority. It's going to take leadership. Is Keir Starmer and you can't deny it's been a tricky few weeks and months. Is Keir Starmer the man that has the authority to do all this?
I think he can. And the reason it's so important as I said is it's about the future. And I think that with the fall in net migration that we've seen a drop of 82% by the way since since its height that creates a greater imperative to create more opportunity for young people in this country. The imperative was there anyway but it's given greater urgency by this. So there's both a need to act and also in a way policy I'm talking about and I obviously it is about policy but it's also about the man at the top and has he got a grip of his party. Is he going to be prime minister in September when these recommendations come back? Do you think?
Well, I certainly hope so. Um, and.
You hope so, but are you sure?
I know there's been a a lot of um drama and what have you in the last few weeks. Keir Starmer was elected as the prime minister less than two years ago. Uh Labour doesn't win that many elections historically speaking. We've got a five-year mandate. Uh I work with him very closely. I want to see him continue with his mandate and continue with his work serving the country. And this agenda about youth opportunity, about work, about making sure that young people can realize the best version of themselves is a hugely important agenda for the country. You're right. It will take leadership. It will take grip. It will take more than one department. This can't all be solved in the Department of Work and Pensions, but we have to work together to do this to change the course of people's lives.
Last question because I know you've got to go. I do have to ask you about Tony Blair. Obviously, you've worked very closely with him. Um, not a particularly helpful intervention yesterday. What did you make of it?
Well, I don't know. I mean, I think it's helpful. I think it's helpful to say that if we're going to have a debate about the future of the country, it has to start with the question with what program, with what policy. I've seen too many newspaper headlines in the last six months or so with lots of runners and riders and nothing about program or policy. So if he's done nothing else, he has done the service of asking anyone who wants to uh put themselves forward for leadership to start with the question with what program and with what policy.
Is he right?
Uh is he right about that? Yes, he's right about that.
Is he right what he says?
Well, you can differ with individual parts of it. It's a 5,000-word essay, but he's certainly right. That debate about the future of the country begins with asking what's your answer to the challenges being faced by the country.
All right, Pat McFadden, thank you so much for coming in. Thank you.
Thank you.
So, we've just had a really interesting chat with Pat McFadden. He is obviously the Work and Pensions Secretary. I'm so glad that we got an interview with him because we've talked so much about the problem and he is actually the guy that is going to have to grapple with this, work out how to get what could be massive reforms past Labour MPs. And I talked to him about a whole range of subjects, you know, social media, um the work landscape, why it is that some government policies, businesses are saying aren't helping them employ young people. But I really wanted to ask him about welfare because they struggled to get welfare reforms through. And the way he was framing it suggests to me that they're trying to kind of reframe this not as a saving money exercise but as a way of getting young people into work whether that will, you know, wash when it comes ultimately to bringing down the benefits bill. We'll see. I also asked him, I had to about Tony Blair. They used to work closely together and he said it was helpful to have a debate.
Well, as you can see, Rob joins us now from the Westminster studio. Um, Rob, I mean, it's been really interesting. You obviously were talking to uh Milburn earlier. Um, we were talking earlier about the kind of assumption that um older people were always prioritized. Do you think that might be changing with what we're seeing?
Feels like it, doesn't it? I mean, Alan Milburn was keen not to be pitting one generation against another generation, but I think what he's getting at is more sort of generational parity. You wind the clock back 15 years and politicians came together to decide something had to be done about the issue of pensioner poverty. Now, the triple lock came out of that. It's become a feature of every government um since. And I think what Alan Milburn was getting at is that not the same thing needs to happen in practical policy terms, but that something equivalent in scope, something that is broadly accepted, something that becomes a sort of untouchable feature of the political landscape is now needed for young people. Now, what could that look like? We'll get his suggestions um in October. Listening to him today though, it seems like there will be changes in various parts of uh the state and how it interacts with young people, schools especially. He talked about too much focus on um academia and not enough focus on the day-to-day skills needed um to go into the workplace. Welfare as well, doing something to stop people sliding so quickly from ill health into welfare. One sobering stat in this report um was that for every £25 spent on welfare for young people, just one pound is spent on employment support. Then I think there will be the stuff to encourage businesses to take on young people. And look, all of this will probably need big change. Yes. But it will probably also need the government at some point to put its hand in its pocket, which leads you to the inevitable question of where the money comes from. Now, I think for many on the left, especially those, you know, focused on this question of intergenerational fairness, their mind might go to things like accumulated property wealth that older generations have. Even the state pension eating up an increasingly large slice of not just the welfare budget but of government spending overall. But you know, there's a there's a reason why governments are reluctant to to mess around with stuff like that. It is an absolute devil to get right politically. But I think that's what we brings us back to this question of potentially a shifting political climate. You've got the Conservatives and Kemmy Bnock out to bat on the issue of student loans. You've got the Green Party bringing younger voters across um from Labour and stealing votes um off them. So maybe in the years down the line, if the climate shifts further, some of these political taboos might start to look more palatable to politicians.
Rob, thank you so much for your analysis.
Right, let's bring the panel back in, shall we? Michelle and Caroline are still on the sofa. Right, there's so much to talk about. I mean that what Rob just said 25 for every 25 pound on welfare, one pound on employment support. I mean this is about bringing down the welfare bill, isn't it Caroline?
No, I don't think it is, hard.
Well, I don't think it's as binary that I think there are issues around the welfare bill we have to deal because we can't just see it going up and up and up because actually the reason why it's going up and up is that too many people of working age not just younger people from 16 to 24 but older are finding themselves unemployed when they should be supported into work. So you have to grasp that. But I think this the imperative here is why have we got a situation in 2026 that so many of our young people and it's rising, it's been rising for the last 12 years or so are not finding even though they spend more time in education than any other generation before them are finding it so difficult to find work. I think some of that is to do as Alan's quite rightly pointed out the sort of things that my generation could sort of rely on is basically and, you know, I had my first, if you like, it wasn't a Saturday job, it was two nights a week at Jock's newsagents basically. I worked two nights a week after school when I was about 12 and would just basically go in there. I would do what my, you know, I knew about sweet shop, my grandparents ran one when I was as well when I was a kid, but basically it was over the counter, it was measuring out the sweets, it was dealing with customers and things like that. And from that age, I literally had a job all the time. When I finished to my O level was my mom got me a job at a local factory in Kingston to start on the she said, "Right, I finished my exams. You're starting on the Monday. You go there and do that." And honestly, when I got my first proper job after university, I used to have all these jobs that I did as an example of what I did. That's I've seen with my own children who are now in their 30s, their experience was very different. There weren't those sort of jobs there. So, one thing I think we should look be looking at is um in school maybe at 14, 15 or whatever. I'm sure there'll be health and safety things, but actually why can't some kids have a day a week where they're doing either community service or doing a work placement in a local firm?
They're so important.
There are so many opportunities to utilize that in community and it's not happening.
What was your Saturday job, Michelle?
Um, so, I had holiday jobs more and then when I finished university, I did a day job and then I would go straight to my nighttime job. Um, so, I did two jobs uh for a period of time. So yeah, I I did waitressing in the evening and I did an expenses administrator in the day.
How important is it that we get, you know, young people doing those sorts of jobs?
Well, I think it's really important because obviously it gives them a lot more confidence. It gives them those those skills of how you operate in a in an office or a factory or whatever it is um which you just can't really learn in a school environment. So it is vitally important that they can start out and break that barrier. And what's happening now is that we've got these young people that are spending years without employment. So it just becomes this trap that they never get out of. And it's no wonder then that we have problems with mental health etc. But, um, I I think one point to to note around what you were saying there is that we cannot argue that welfare is not a problem. The welfare bill in this country is astonishing and at the moment we've tipped the balance so that it doesn't pay to work. Now, if you're a person weighing Michelle Michelle,
Well, let, let me finish. I'll let you finish. Okay.
If you're a person, you're weighing that up. It doesn't make sense to work. And that is the position that we have got ourselves into. And we need to rein it back. The government were going to do that. And they bottled it last year. And it's time that we sorted that out. I'm not saying that that is the entire reason for this. This is a very complex problem. There are multitude of of different reasons. As I said before, it's things like the education system, etc. But that is a component that we have to actually admit and our our welfare bill is um so many more times than our defense budget. That is mad in an unstable. So look, I well look um so.
It was Ian Duncan Smith that changed our system from one that was, you know, when I was uh employment and welfare reform minister where you had a sort of unemployment allowance and then we had something called the employment support allowance which was very much targeted to people who had some condition that was not helping them into the job market. That was all changed with the Universal Credit and whatever Ian Duncan Smith's um um intentions it hasn't worked out well. But we also you have to have a series of programs too that addressed um people's needs to get in the workplace. And again we had things like Pathways to Work with people with health and disability conditions and they worked well and part of that is working with employers to offset employers minds. I don't know whether it's a fear or a hesitancy that somehow if you employ someone for example with a mental health anxiety or or something or bipolar what have you that that's going to be difficult. It isn't difficult. There are plenty of examples with the right support and reasonable adjustments made that don't cost a lot that actually there are employers in this country already who employ people who are neurodiverse with all sorts of things. We've got to overcome employers fears of this, but also help employers see those young people as a real in their real potential get beyond anything they're dealing with. And that hasn't been happening for a long time because we haven't had programs there and that phrase started well before this government.
Well, I think, you know, steady on because this government has been in power for for almost two years and we've al we've got a multitude of different schemes like disability confidence and other schemes that that give.
So what are you suggesting financial cutting off?
Um, so I'm saying that we need to get stricter when it comes to our our welfare and the balance of making work pay and incentivizing people. Um, and we also need to rejig our education system so that we're actually providing the skills uh that employers need. I think we need to stop bashing employers and actually um remove some of the regulation, remove some of the taxation and then we'll find that they're in a position to actually take a gamble on young people.
One sentence from you.
Well, I think the problem is we end up in this binary situation. Of course, not all employers are are bad, but some employers could do more. And no, I'm sorry. It's true. And there are examples of really good employers, large corporate, small and medium-sized businesses who do well by the children and young people that live in their area. But I'm so sorry. I know we'll talk about this off air. There's there's plenty more to talk about. That story is sure to feature heavily on our late night program. The Rap Tonight from 10 p.m. Here to discuss all of today's big stories and the best of tomorrow's papers will be the journalist and author Christina Patterson and Times Radio presenter Rod Little.
Nicola, can you understand why some people don't believe you when you said that? Nicola, why won't you answer questions from the media? Nicola, can you understand why? Can you understand why?
Filming? Sorry.
Nicola. Can you understand why some people don't believe you when you said that? Nicola, why won't you answer questions from the media in relation to your husband? Well, that was the moment our Scotland correspondent Connor Gillies tried to catch up with former Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as she left an event at the literary festival in Ireland a bit earlier. She's been talking about how the last two days have been, as she put it, probably the worst week of my life. On Monday, of course, you'll know her estranged husband, Peter Murrell, admitted in court to embezzling more than £400,000 from the political party that she once led. and of which he was chief executive. Well, I'm pleased to say Connor joins us live now. Connor, what does she have to say?
Well, as you say, this was one of Scotland's biggest political scandals in recent years. The duo at the top of Scottish politics, Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader and Scotland's First Minister, and her husband Peter Murrell, the longtime chief executive of the party. Uh, and just this week on Monday came the bombshell news from Peter Murrell that he admitted embezzling, defrauding the party of £400,000 to fund a lavish luxury lifestyle that he simply couldn't afford. A £100,000 camper van uh that he bought with SNP donor cash, watches, a Jaguar car, uh even salt and pepper grinders as well. Well, now Nicola Sturgeon has been clear throughout all of this that she was completely unaware of any of these purchases and of any of her husband's criminal activities. And she reiterated that today. You may be asking, why are we here in West of Ireland, the innocent backdrop of the musical performance here at this book festival? Well, it's because Nicola Sturgeon made her first public appearance today since that admission of guilt by her estranged husband. Uh, and she we attempted along with other media broadcasters to ask Nicola Sturgeon uh some questions here at the conclusion of that event. Uh, and she, as you've just witnessed there, dodged those questions, doing a runner into the kitchen, security barging us out of the way. And why do we need to ask some questions of Nicola Sturgeon? Well, uh, I would have been asking what does it say about her leadership that this criminality, that this amount of money was lost, was stolen while she was leader and the crimes went unchecked for so long. Uh, I mentioned the motor home. Well, that was parked outside her in-laws' home for up to two years. That is where the police seized it from. Again, she says she had no knowledge of that whatsoever. But she did uh speak to this crowd who'd paid €20 a pop to get access to her and listened to her uh tell a story or two for around an hour here in West Ireland. And here is what she said. I think we can have a look now. She said, "This has probably been the worst week of my life. The last few years have had have had some tough weeks for me, but this one I think surpasses all of them. Coming to terms with the fact that I spent many years married to someone that as it turns out I obviously didn't know at all." Now she also said it has been a really painful truth to process and I think I'm only in the very early stages of processing it. I was completely exonerated, totally cleared. And yet that doesn't stop this week many people pointing the finger of suspicion at me all over again for trying to hold me responsible for someone else's crimes and having to go through that in a very, very public way. Now let's remember Nicola Sturgeon herself found uh herself facing questions in custody by police, arrested by those officers in Scotland, later released without charge. It has to be said. But the reasons that there are questions being asked, fresh questions being asked is because of that power couple at the top of the SNP for so long. And let's remember ruling members of the ruling party, the ruling body for the SNP who were on the panel at the time said that Nicola Sturgeon herself shut down any scrutiny whatsoever of SNP finances. While we now know at the same time uh her husband was lifting cash from under the party's nose. So look, there was no answer to any of our questions here from Sky News today doing that runner into the kitchen. Uh, and no doubt those questions will persist. She continues her book tour tomorrow where no doubt other journalists will be pursuing a line of questioning. And as for the SNP, well that very much remains a live issue.
Okay, Connor Gillies, thanks so much. Live for us there. Now, we're getting reports tonight that officials in Washington are briefing that an agreement to extend the ceasefire with Iran and start nuclear talks is ready, pending approval from President Trump. Well, our US correspondent Mark Stone joins us now. Mark, um, you've been listening, I think, to um Scott Bessant, who is of course standing in for Caroline Levit, who's on paternity leave. Has he has he said anything interesting?
Uh, well, I mean, he's not provided any clarity. Uh, Ally, I'd love to be able to give you some uh tonight, but uh I can't. Uh, it's been kind of a bewildering day of, you know, is a deal done? Um, have both sides agreed? What does the deal contain? Is it a full deal or is it just some sort of a a tactic to provide space for both sides to actually negotiate the um the thorny issues? Uh, it's really not clear. Uh, what Scott Bessant did say this evening and you're right he's standing in for Caroline Levit, she's the press secretary, she's on maternity leave and week after week in a sort of apprentice-style um, you know, event, the uh various members of Trump's cabinet are kind of standing in for him. It was Marco Rubio, then it was JD Vance, those two potential presidential candidates, so it it felt a bit apprentice-like. Scott Bessant is not a presidential candidate nor does is he particularly comfortable at the podium. Him and nor did he give any clarity on Iran because what he said is it is all all up to the president. Uh, any um, what did he say here? We are everything depends on what the president wants to do and he seemed to suggest that the president wouldn't sign any deal until it had guarantees in it uh that Iran would give up its nuclear capability, that Iran would hand over its enriched uranium and open the Strait of Hormuz. Those three key issues. Well, what we were understanding the deal was uh the this 60-day space to to negotiate was to negotiate two of those points, the nuclear issue. And now Scott Bessant seems to be saying Trump won't sign it unless it has explicit agreement that Iran would give up its nuclear capability. So look, I'm sorry I can't provide you any clarity. I feel like we have been here many times before. Uh, steps forward maybe, but also uh military back and forth as well with Iran firing a ballistic missile at Kuwait overnight and the Americans saying they took defensive action overnight as well. So uh goodness knows what's happening. Sorry, no clarity.
No, Mark, thank you. Well, I know if anyone can get clarity, uh, it's you. So we'll come back to you if we hear anymore. Thanks very much. Right, Caroline and Michelle are still on the sofa. Okay, let's talk a bit about Iran because I mean, as Mark was saying, you know, it's kind of hard to keep up with everything that's happening. We had these reports out of Iranian state TV yesterday that could be a draft deal. White House yesterday saying that wasn't the case. Now this um what do you make of it all, Caroline?
Um, well, we've been here since February the 28th. It's a long time given it was it may be over in a couple of weeks, wasn't it? A fortnight uh later. Uh, I mean, what's really weird about everything that's happened is obviously, you know, the report there was about what can they do in terms of a deal on their nuclear capacity of of Iran and I think some of that is is predicated on whether uh Iran is willing for uh others to uh reduce that capacity or whether they're going to be left with others watching what they do and inspecting it to do it themselves. But the irony of all this is I think most a lot of people around the world had never heard of the Strait of Hormuz. They had no idea whatsoever how important that was to the transport not just of oil and gas but other goods as well uh to ourselves and elsewhere. And in some ways a weird outcome of this is President Trump has almost strengthened Iran's leverage when it comes to that piece of water.
I'm sure that's not the outcome he thought. But the fact is, apart from the nuclear stuff, we're now having to talk about whether tolls will be charged, how free will it be going back to where it was before this crisis. And at the end of the day, the poor people in Iran who suffer enormous oppression and repressive actions, something like 8,000 people have been picked up since this started and arrested. Others have been executed. Um, none of that has changed for all that Trump lorded when he first started this conflict. And we don't talk about that because in the beginning, if you remember, and I'm sure Michelle and I probably would agree on this, uh, President Trump was shouting the odds about how this would lead to an uprising and those people who are sadly oppressed in that country would realize their freedoms. Well, that seems even further away than ever.
I mean, is there any trust at all, any landing zone for a deal?
Well, well, first of all, I completely agree with with Caroline around the fact that it has really highlighted to the um Iranian regime just how powerful that Strait of Hormuz is. And in many ways, Trump has shot himself in the foot with that one. Um, but in relation to where we go from now, you know, every day it almost feels like we wake up and it's like a knee-jerk different thing. We're heading towards uh the end or and then we're not and uh they they all contradict one another and Trump's messaging changes and evolves within the same day. And all I keep thinking is how is our economy going to cope with this. I mean, people are really struggling out there and okay, we're going to get £4 off going to the zoo next month, but that isn't really going to see us through and we're talking now about potentially global recession. You know, the energy prices are going.
up, businesses are struggling, and this war is really damaging our economy and the the global economy, and it's people out there that are going to suffer.
Thank you both. We'll come back to you. Um, we're going to continue talking about Trump. Take a look at this.
This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people.
An update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election. If you count the legal votes, I easily win.
Lies should be punished in all walks of life. It seems like quite an uncontroversial statement, doesn't it? But while corporate CEOs who fib to burnish the image of their company can be fined or even jailed, lies by politicians have no such automatic sanction, and their lies threaten the foundations of democracy. So says Andrew Weissman, formerly a lead prosecutor in special counselor Robert Mueller's office, who has written a book, Liars Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. Well, he joins me now. I'm pleased to say. Thank you so much.
Thank you um for being with us. So you've been singled out by Donald Trump. You've twice been named in executive orders. I suppose my first question is, what, what is that like being targeted by the president?
Well, I can tell you the very first time it happened. I was working for special counsel Robert Mueller, and I can tell you the my first reaction was, how does the president of the United States have the time to even be thinking about me? I have a healthy ego, but not that healthy an ego. Um, that I would think that the president of the United States should be thinking about that and not so many other problems. Some of the problems you've been discussing um just just a moment ago.
And in fact, I think we can play a clip of the president talking about you.
His interviewer was, I think that was Weissman. And I hope they're going to look into Weissman, too. Weissman's a bad guy. and he had somebody in Lisa who was his puppet worked in the office uh really as the top person and I think that uh she should be looked at very strongly. It there was tremendous criminal activity having to do if we don't have fair elections in this country, we're not going to have a country.
I mean, this is a man, and you can see our panel here still as well um, this is a man that yields a lot of power.
Yes, absolutely. That was said um shortly after I here in London. Uh, we did an interview. I was uh, I was a fellow at UCL, and we did an interview of Jack Smith um to have him talk about what he could talk about uh legally in his investigation, and then the president reacted exactly in the way that you just resp you just played.
And tell us a bit about your book, because you think there basically can be more checks. Yeah, I I was struck by um, obviously, I think that there is a rampant problem in the United States of political lies. Um, it is a crime in the United States to lie to Congress, but it's not a crime for Congress to lie to us. Um, that is something that there's no legal repercussions. Um, and so we're left to only political repercussions. Um, and I was struck that in my career, how many people in how many different walks of life can find themselves on the wrong side of the criminal law and civil law. Um, you mentioned CEOs. I prosecuted the Enron case, but also um, Roger Stone was found was convicted for lying to Congress. Paul Maniffort um pleaded guilty and admitted that he lied to banks, to the Department of Justice, to FBI agents. All of that is something that we regulate. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, was found
and he was found civilly liable when he he was found to have lied about two election workers. And all of that is something that we penalize in one way or the other. and the anomaly that we don't do that with respect to politicians, even when it's core material lies about, for instance, whether you won the election um, we don't in any way stren you have any sort of sanctions.
Is the US unusual here? What's the president in other countries?
So that was one of the really interesting things. I looked at what other states in the United States because we have a federal system um, but I also looked at various models. So England was one uh, and Brazil in particular because of Bolsinaro, the former president. I looked at France and looked at Germany, and so I use those as potential models and then
um, explain how they work and then how those might be used in the United States where we have a different legal system. uh, we have a very strong First Amendment, but I sort of walk people through how I think we could model something that happens here in England, happens certainly in Brazil, that would hold political leaders to account if they intentionally lie about something material, not something like um, the crowd size that one has at an event um, to take one um obvious example, or you know, how one did in school. I mean, those are not good things to be clear, but I could see why you wouldn't want a criminal law on something that's not as material as something um, like who won the election.
Yeah, it's because I always thought that there were more checks and balances in America because of the constitution compared to say the UK.
So, that that is something that I think was true. Um, but one of the things that Donald Trump has revealed in the first and second terms is how much our constitution um, leaves a lot to norms but not hard and fast laws. And so in our 250th anniversary, which I know is a drop in the bucket compared to being here in Europe, but um, you know, I really caused me to think about how can we sort of harden the target? How can we make ourselves more resilient to authoritarian tendencies?
Do you think anyone's listening? You know, do you think you can have an impact?
You know, I'm hopeful. I think at the federal level, there are 50 states, and everything that I'm talking about could happen at the state level as well. Um, we'll see how the midterms go. And but I, you know, I'm hopeful. I hope that at the very least, I'm getting people to think about um better structural reforms to hopefully have another 250 years of a healthy democracy.
Should we bring the panel in because of course, I mean, we've talked about the UK a bit there, and there were a few years ago, there were accusations Boris Johnson lying. So, you know, it's a, it's a problem that different countries have and deal with in different ways.
Yeah. And it it is really important that we have integrity, especially in our elections, and there was an individual that lost his seat in 2010 because of this under our Representation of the People's Act. So we do actually have processes and policies in place to protect.
That was that was exactly one of the instances that I talked about.
One of the examples you used to think.
No, I I think that, you know, I mean, just to say that, you know, the UK can't cover itself in glory. If you went back 250 years in the UK, we had our own number of what we used to call rotten boroughs and all sorts of things going on that didn't necessarily, you know, raise the standard of democracy. But I mean, I think there has to be something in which, and I think it's it's even bigger than just, which is important about someone coming along and suggesting the election wasn't done properly and therefore it should be null and void and encouraging others to see it in that way. Um, it is about a sort of discussions we should be able to have, and it's quite right, and we've had it in this country where people have put complaints about where maybe postal votes haven't been used properly or what have you like that. We have an Electoral Commission that will look at these issues. They will do investigations, but it it's done in a what I would say, a organized and proper way to get to the truth, and then acceptance by everyone once that's done that that is the truth. And I think we just have a responsibility as obviously a former politician myself to when we use our power to use it appropriately in the interests of public support for our democracy, not just raising distrust because it suits your own political advantage. I think that is very, very important. One of the key questions, Andrew, is, does any of this impact Trump's popularity? I mean, I think he's just said he doesn't care about the midterms, but do you think people, people, is affecting his popularity?
You know, um, I I right now the polling is is pretty horrendous, but whether that's is sustained, you know, in the next few months, we'll see. Um, I do think that the question you're raising though, and one of the comments you made, is that although I did think about this because of what we're seeing with Donald Trump, the what I'm focusing on is something that if Donald Trump was gone tomorrow and he he was no longer president, we're still going to have this problem because he has modeled a certain type of behavior that is successful. And so that's why I I think it's wrong to just think about it as just, oh, this is only about Donald Trump. It is really about the problem. And also the idea that I mean, I was a public servant, not elected, but for 20 years. And I like to think that I should be held to the highest possible standard. And so this is a way of trying to deal with that issue.
And how can the US rebuild?
Well, so, you know, yeah. Um, so one thing, this is one idea um, there are many, many other ideas, and there are a lot of people thinking about that issue of how did we get here, but what structural changes can be made. Understanding it's still human beings, and human beings, you know, and their morality is going to be important, but you can build systems to make it harder for an authoritarian and to diffuse power. That's the whole idea of checks and balances, is that you have greater freedom when the power of the government is not in one branch.
Final thought from our panel, Michelle.
Well, we have a very different system in in the UK, and um, and we uh, actually split our executive and our legislature, and we don't have a presidential system. But in the UK, we have seen this increasing move towards the the role of the individual, and we've seen that with the the regularity that we swapped out leaders, including in my own party, and what's going on now with K Star. And I do think that that is a bit of a dangerous trend, especially when we look over to what's happening in America.
Caroline.
Well, I always talk about American politics slightly differently. It's just the amount of money that's spent in American politics, which I think also adds to the sort of nature of the campaigns, nature of it with the ads and everything else. And I remember many, many years with a a very nice American person I met having a conversation about this, and when I said, "Well, why can't you have more limits on what you spend?" And he said, "It's about freedom of speech." I said, "But if everybody has to spend the same and you set the limit, they have equal amount of freedom of speech."
Okay. Thank you both. And thank you very much, Andrew, for coming in. I hope you didn't come all the way from America to be here.
I did not, but I but I would have.
Thank you. And we leave you tonight with the unforgettable image of the albino buffalo uh that has been spared from slaughter for Eid by the Bangladeshi government because of its hair, which bears a resemblance to a certain US president that we might have been talking about. Right, that is it for tonight. Thank you to Caroline and Michelle for being on the sofa. Cathy, of course, uh, is back with you again on Monday at 7:00. Thanks for watching.