has flooded south-east europe. which has flooded south—east europe. the pattern isn't going to change much over the next few days. overnight tonight, the odd shower in western areas, some low cloud, mist and fog around the north sea coast, otherwise a warm night. the temperatures into the first part of thursday there. thursday on the whole, a similar day, mist and fog patches, low cloud tending to clear. one or two patches could linger. the odd shower in the west, but for the bulk of the uk, hot and sunny. scotland and northern ireland, mid—to—high 20s, england and wales, high 20s to low 30s. another hot day. the september heatwave continues on friday, the tendency to see a bit more low cloud, mist and fog, notjust north sea coasts but irish sea coast. might feel a tad more humid as well, but very hot again. temperatures in the low 30s, more of the hot sunny weather

through the weekend, but a change into next week as we see rain returning and the temperatures dropping closer to normal. that is the bbc news at ten. more analysis of the main stories on newsnight with victoria just getting under way on bbc two. and the news continues on bbc one as we join our colleagues in the news where you are. good night. condition of school buildings, and it's not a pretty picture. we report from one school in milton keynes where they don't

have the money to make the building safe, they say. the children were coming outside onto the playground, after they'd eaten their lunch in the hall, and the entire door just came away and fell out onto the playground. we'll hear from the chair of the public accounts committee, the ceo of a trust that runs eight schools, and the former schools minister david laws. also tonight: one of america's top diplomats — former us secretary of state condoleezza rice — tells us in an exclusive interview why she thinks the world is less safe now than post—9/ii. i think this may be is a more dangerous climate. great power rivalry— dangerous climate. great power rivalry brings its own character, with _ rivalry brings its own character, with great — rivalry brings its own character, with great powers and their military power _ with great powers and their military power and — with great powers and their military power and economic clout, they can really— power and economic clout, they can really have — power and economic clout, they can really have a — power and economic clout, they can really have a huge impact. and power and economic clout, they can really have a huge impact.— really have a huge impact. and as president xi _ really have a huge impact. and as president xi is _ really have a huge impact. and as president xi is likely _ really have a huge impact. and as president xi is likely no _ really have a huge impact. and as president xi is likely no show - really have a huge impact. and as president xi is likely no show at i president xi is likely no show at the 620 summit, we ask about the rising threat of china. and some good news from yemen —

a huge oil tanker catastrophe there has been averted. 6ood good evening. while the row over raac dominated westminster today, it's worth starting the programme with this from the uk's independent public spending watchdog from a report published in june this year. the national audit office pointed out, in a review on the condition of school buildings, that the department for education in england thought the possibility of a school building collapse "causing death or injury" was a "critical and very likely" risk. it also said around 700,000 children were studying in schools needing major rebuilding or refurbishing — irrespective of raac. one headteacher in milton keynes got in touch with us via whatsapp. that number, by the way, is 07977 701980. she says she doesn't have the money to keep her buildings safe. here's sima. here at wood end infants', there is no raac — the crumbly concrete making headlines. but the head teacher says the school — built in 1975 —

is falling apart and that the debate needs to move on from one material to a wider discussion about the cost of school maintenance. so what is it, claire, that you're particularly worried about in here? so as you can see on the ceiling, there's a lot of staining, there's cracking, there's a hole. we did have an issue where the roofs were leaking, so every time it rained, water was pouring in with buckets. so we were given some money through a capital project with the local authority to have our flat roofs repaired, and that seemed to stop the leaking. but the staining has continued and the cracking has continued. here, they get a capital budget of £4,000 per year to spend on things like repairs, but the head says it's nowhere near enough. when you factor in inflation, the capital budget for education fell by 50% from its peak between 2010 and last year. back in february, we had an incident

where the children were coming outside onto the playground, after they'd eaten their lunch in the hall, and the entire door just came away and fell out onto the playground. 6osh! yeah, it was very worrying. nobody was hurt, though? nobody was hurt, luckily. obviously, it was a shock to adults and children, and very frightening. and there is now concern, obviously, in the back of our mind, that that could happen again with any other door. and you haven't got the money in your kitty at the moment to get this door repaired? the glass, that's correct. this school says it needs at least £200,000 to pay for all its repairs. if you multiply that by the number of schools with similar problems, you're talking about billions of pounds. so the question is, would politicians be willing to make that sort of investment, and is the electorate willing to pay for it? the national audit office — responsible for auditing the government's various departments — made this assessment back injune. it said: "in recent years, there has been a significant funding

shortfall, contributing to deterioration across the school estate. dfe has reported £7 billion a year as the best practice level of capitalfunding to maintain, repair and rebuild the school estate." in 2020, it recommended funding of £5.3 billion a year to maintain schools and mitigate the most serious risks of building failure. dfe was subsequently allocated an average of £3.1 billion a year of relevant funding from hm treasury. it says the rate of school rebuilding is significantly below what the government estimates is required to maintain the school estate. i feel that elements of the school are not entirely safe. i couldn't put my hand on my heart and swear by it, but i've done everything that i possibly can as head teacher to try and ensure that the children are safe, but there are many repairs that need to be done in the building.

today, the prime minister said his 2020 spending review had led to more money being spent on schools. funding for school maintenance and rebuilding will average £2.6 billion a year over this parliament as a result of that spending review, which represents a 20% increase on the years before. indeed... indeed, mr speaker, farfrom cutting budgets, as he alleges, the amount spent last year was the highest in a decade. i feel that if the government want to find money for things, they do. and what's the priority? is it our children's education? is it the buildings that we put our children into? our children are the future. they have got to be protected. they've got to have a good environment for learning. and if they can't come to school and be safe, then we can't educate them properly. one tory mp told newsnight, ministers are doing all they can with limited resources. but they say with an election not long away, they need to be more innovative and focus on some of the basics, rather than making headlines.

we've asked the government for an interview, as we have each night we've discussed raac. they declined. a little while ago, i spoke to the former schools minister in the coaltion government, the lib dems' david laws. you were schools minister from 2012, did you know about raac? m0. you were schools minister from 2012, did you know about raac?— you were schools minister from 2012, did you know about raac? no, we knew that there were — did you know about raac? no, we knew that there were issues _ did you know about raac? no, we knew that there were issues about _ did you know about raac? no, we knew that there were issues about some - that there were issues about some schools with concrete problems. i remember putting in a bid for the priority school building programme in 2014 and some of the other ministers and government on the conservative side wanting to cut the school maintenance aspect of the programme to increase free schools. and i can remember defending the priority school building programme to deal with maintenance needs. by sending to the treasury a number of sketches ofjust sending to the treasury a number of sketches of just some sending to the treasury a number of sketches ofjust some of sending to the treasury a number of sketches of just some of the sending to the treasury a number of sketches ofjust some of the schools that would be excluded from that programme if we cut it to spend more money on free schools. and some of those schools did have problems with types of concrete, whether it was

aerated, i can't tell. d0 types of concrete, whether it was aerated, i can't tell.— aerated, i can't tell. do you remember— aerated, i can't tell. do you remember people - aerated, i can't tell. do you remember people talking . aerated, i can't tell. do you - remember people talking about raac when he was schools minister? ihla. when he was schools minister? no, absolutely not. _ when he was schools minister? iifr, absolutely not, it was not an exclusive issue.— absolutely not, it was not an exclusive issue. how was that possible? _ exclusive issue. how was that possible? the _ exclusive issue. how was that possible? the verse - exclusive issue. how was that possible? the verse warnings| exclusive issue. how was that - possible? the verse warnings about raac were in 1961, the first report for the department for education was 1996 after two schools in essex had big structural problems, concerns about the schools estate was raised, the audit commission describing it as a time bomb, but you haven't heard of raac?— as a time bomb, but you haven't heard of raac? that issue, as far as my recollection _ heard of raac? that issue, as far as my recollection is _ heard of raac? that issue, as far as my recollection is now, _ heard of raac? that issue, as far as my recollection is now, was - heard of raac? that issue, as far as my recollection is now, was not - my recollection is now, was not identified as a big issue beyond all of the other maintenance needs of schools. it seems to have been more in 2018 that it became a big concern as an issue in its own right by the department. as an issue in its own right by the department-— as an issue in its own right by the deartment. ., . ., , ., ~' department. how much do you think austeri , department. how much do you think austerity. which _ department. how much do you think austerity, which you _ department. how much do you think austerity, which you are _ department. how much do you think austerity, which you are responsible | austerity, which you are responsible for in the coalition 6overnment, austerity, which you are responsible for in the coalition government, is a contributing factor to the state of school buildings now? i

a contributing factor to the state of school buildings now?- of school buildings now? i don't think it is a _ of school buildings now? i don't think it is a major _ of school buildings now? i don't think it is a major factor. - of school buildings now? i don't think it is a major factor. after l think it is a major factor. after all, the school buildings programme after 2010, even though it was reduced from the very high point it got too at the end of the labour government in 2008 to 2010, was still pretty significant. the ca - ital still pretty significant. the capital spending _ still pretty significant. the capital spending under the coalition fell in real terms by about 40%. but ou are fell in real terms by about 40%. pm you are taking the absolute peak under labour at the end of the period of labour government and comparing that to the period during the coalition.— the coalition. yes, i am, under the coalition in — the coalition. yes, i am, under the coalition in 2010 _ the coalition. yes, i am, under the coalition in 2010 onwards, - the coalition. yes, i am, under the coalition in 2010 onwards, capital. coalition in 2010 onwards, capital spending fell in real terms by around 40% until 2018. it spending fell in real terms by around 4096 until 2018. it was very similar in real— around 4096 until 2018. it was very similar in real terms _ around 4096 until 2018. it was very similar in real terms even - around 4096 until 2018. it was very similar in real terms even during i around 4096 until 2018. it was very similar in real terms even during a| similar in real terms even during a period of austerity to the average under the entire period of labour government. and of course, we were getting better value for money for the expenditure because we were not building schools costing individually 20, 30, 40 million, we were building them at a fraction of the cost under labour. so were building them at a fraction of the cost under labour.— the cost under labour. so you are exectin: the cost under labour. so you are exoecting our _ the cost under labour. so you are expecting our viewers _ the cost under labour. so you are expecting our viewers to - the cost under labour. so you are expecting our viewers to believe i expecting our viewers to believe that despite being in government,

the lib dems don't bear any responsibility for the state of the school state now? ihia. responsibility for the state of the school state now?— school state now? no, i don't think we do for two _ school state now? no, i don't think we do for two reasons. _ school state now? no, i don't think we do for two reasons. firstly, - school state now? no, i don't think we do for two reasons. firstly, the| we do for two reasons. firstly, the bids we made during my time in the education department to the treasury for basic need and maintenance were accepted. we don't have the problem that seems to have arisen recently that seems to have arisen recently that the permanent secretary has talked about, where the bid were not met in full, which is a real issue we need to look at. and the other thing is that we put in place a priority school buildings programme that was targeting the maintenance needs far more effectively than the predecessor programmes.- needs far more effectively than the predecessor programmes. parents and teachers and _ predecessor programmes. parents and teachers and heads _ predecessor programmes. parents and teachers and heads don't _ predecessor programmes. parents and teachers and heads don't know- teachers and heads don't know whether tomorrow they will be able to teach probably come next week of the week after, you know the department for education welcome is it equipped to handle this effectively?— it equipped to handle this effectivel ? ~ ., , , effectively? what is different in this particular _ effectively? what is different in this particular case, _ effectively? what is different in this particular case, which - effectively? what is different in this particular case, which is i effectively? what is different in i this particular case, which is going to be a huge challenge for the department, as they are not dealing with one, three, five, ten schools that have to be turned around very

quickly, they are dealing with 150, 160, it may be more, who knows? that is going to be a very big challenge for the department to deal with in one go. is for the department to deal with in one no. , .. ., for the department to deal with in onero. , ., one go. is the education secretary gillian keegan _ one go. is the education secretary gillian keegan the _ one go. is the education secretary gillian keegan the right _ one go. is the education secretary gillian keegan the right person . one go. is the education secretary gillian keegan the right person to| gillian keegan the right person to handle that challenge? i gillian keegan the right person to handle that challenge?— gillian keegan the right person to handle that challenge? i don't know, i think handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what — handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what we _ handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what we urgently _ handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what we urgently need - handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what we urgently need is - handle that challenge? i don't know, i think what we urgently need is a i i think what we urgently need is a review either by an independent person or by the select committees into what has happened with the capital programme, and i think some of the suggestions that the permanent secretary, the former permanent secretary, the former permanent secretary, the former permanent secretary made about the treasury not accepting the full capital bids made by the dfe after 2018, that all needs to be looked into. it would be a real error if we didn't learn the lessons from the last five, ten, 15 years and make sure that we get the maintenance of the school state right in the future. . , the school state right in the future. ., , ., ~ the school state right in the future. . , ., , future. david laws, thank you very much for talking _ future. david laws, thank you very much for talking to _ future. david laws, thank you very much for talking to newsnight. - future. david laws, thank you very l much for talking to newsnight. anki. -- thank you- _ we can talk now to sarah skinner —

ceo of penrose learning trust, which runs eight schools across suffolk and essex, and dame meg hillier, the labour chair of the public accounts committee. welcome, how has it been over the last week? pretty chaotic, to be perfectly honest. have you slept? not much, no, we arejust perfectly honest. have you slept? not much, no, we are just working flat out to procure classrooms to get our children back in school. {lilia get our children back in school. ok, so i understand _ get our children back in school. ok, so i understand three of your eight schools have an issue with raac. how bad is it, what does it mean that those buildings? it is bad is it, what does it mean that those buildings? it is considerable. in one those buildings? it is considerable. in one school. _ those buildings? it is considerable. in one school, we _ those buildings? it is considerable. in one school, we have _ those buildings? it is considerable. in one school, we have 12 - those buildings? it is considerable. l in one school, we have 12 classrooms out. in the second, we have 16 classrooms out and a gymnasium. in the third, we have 14 classrooms out and a staff room. 50 the third, we have 14 classrooms out and a staff room.— the third, we have 14 classrooms out and a staff room. so where are those kids going? — and a staff room. so where are those kids going? well. — and a staff room. so where are those kids going? well, at _ and a staff room. so where are those kids going? well, at the _ and a staff room. so where are those kids going? well, at the moment, i and a staff room. so where are those| kids going? well, at the moment, we can have certain _ kids going? well, at the moment, we can have certain year— kids going? well, at the moment, we can have certain year groups - kids going? well, at the moment, we can have certain year groups back- kids going? well, at the moment, we can have certain year groups back at i can have certain year groups back at a time, but some will be on home learning until we secure the temporary classroom on site set up ready to go. temporary classroom on site set up ready to go-— ready to go. have you had to order temporary — ready to go. have you had to order temporary classrooms? _ ready to go. have you had to order temporary classrooms? yes, i ready to go. have you had to order temporary classrooms? yes, we i ready to go. have you had to order i temporary classrooms? yes, we have secured some — temporary classrooms? yes, we have secured some today, _ temporary classrooms? yes, we have secured some today, we _ temporary classrooms? yes, we have secured some today, we have - temporary classrooms? yes, we have secured some today, we have been . secured some today, we have been waiting for the dfe to give a date on when the ones they apparently have procured can arrive, but they

can't give that information at the moment. �* �* .. ., moment. but didn't the education secretary say _ moment. but didn't the education secretary say on _ moment. but didn't the education secretary say on monday - moment. but didn't the education secretary say on monday she i moment. but didn't the education secretary say on monday she had | moment. but didn't the education i secretary say on monday she had the temporary classrooms, she had the portakabins ready to go, give us a call? ,, �* ., , portakabins ready to go, give us a call? ., �* . , ., portakabins ready to go, give us a call? ,, �* ., , ., . call? she did. i'm ready to receive them but, at the _ call? she did. i'm ready to receive them but, at the moment, - call? she did. i'm ready to receive them but, at the moment, we i call? she did. i'm ready to receive| them but, at the moment, wejust cannot get any on how many across the country for everyone, how many i can have and when they can arrive. so you have ordered your own temper classrooms, how many do you have to order? i classrooms, how many do you have to order? ~ .. .,,, order? i need 26 across the three schools. order? i need 26 across the three schools- today. _ order? i need 26 across the three schools. today, i— order? i need 26 across the three schools. today, i have _ order? i need 26 across the three schools. today, i have secured i schools. today, i have secured definitely six with furniture at one site. 14 at another, but they take longer to set up because they are units and they need building. tomorrow, we will confirm whether we have secured eight for another site. my have secured eight for another site. my goodness. how much do they cost? we have had one prize for the six definite ones, £125,000 for a 12 week hire process. so definite ones, £125,000 for a 12 week hire process.— definite ones, £125,000 for a 12 week hire process. so you could be lookin: at week hire process. so you could be looking at a — week hire process. so you could be looking at a bill, _ week hire process. so you could be looking at a bill, assuming - week hire process. so you could be looking at a bill, assuming you i looking at a bill, assuming you manage to get those temporary

classrooms, of half £1 million? yes. classrooms, of half £1 million? yes, absolutely. — classrooms, of half £1 million? yes, absolutely, that _ classrooms, of half £1 million? yes, absolutely, that is _ classrooms, of half £1 million? yes, absolutely, that is before _ classrooms, of half £1 million? has absolutely, that is before we start the work. do absolutely, that is before we start the work. , ., . absolutely, that is before we start the work. y., ., .., . the work. do you have confidence the department — the work. do you have confidence the department for _ the work. do you have confidence the department for education _ the work. do you have confidence the department for education will- the work. do you have confidence the department for education will give i department for education will give you that money for those temper classrooms you have had to order, despite the education secretary saying she had them ready to go? == saying she had them ready to go? » temporary classrooms. we are been told categorically our costs will be refunded, we don't know how we reclaim that money back it. what refunded, we don't know how we reclaim that money back it. what is the effect of _ reclaim that money back it. what is the effect of the _ reclaim that money back it. what is the effect of the children, - reclaim that money back it. what is the effect of the children, the i the effect of the children, the teachers, the parent and you? == teachers, the parent and you? -- that money _ teachers, the parent and you? » that money back yet. i am devastated for the students to be frank, we have had years of upset through nobody�*s fault and now i want to start a year with all my children back looking aspiration lay at the year ahead and we cannot do that. the staff, they are brilliant and very pragmatic, they are getting on and doing it. the parents are mostly supportive, but some incredibly frustrated, but equally so am i. the prime minister said today it will take days, weeks to sort this out, is he right?— is he right? well, as i hear it on the ground from _

is he right? well, as i hear it on the ground from the _ is he right? well, as i hear it on the ground from the people i is he right? well, as i hear it on| the ground from the people who is he right? well, as i hear it on - the ground from the people who know, absolutely not. so if i give you the example in one of my schools, i have people in removing the asbestos in the ceiling before the surveyor can go in to get the spec right to get the contractors and to undertake the work. that is not going to be done in days and probably not a few weeks. meg hillier, what do you think of what you just heard? it is meg hillier, what do you think of what you just heard? what you 'ust heard? it is shocking but this what you just heard? it is shocking but this is a _ what you just heard? it is shocking but this is a symptom _ what you just heard? it is shocking but this is a symptom of— what you just heard? it is shocking but this is a symptom of the i but this is a symptom of the approach _ but this is a symptom of the approach of a snowball of chaos because — approach of a snowball of chaos because it's impossible to do this work— because it's impossible to do this work in _ because it's impossible to do this work in the — because it's impossible to do this work in the days and weeks the prime minister— work in the days and weeks the prime minister said today. i heard him say it in the _ minister said today. i heard him say it in the house of commons and turned — it in the house of commons and turned to— it in the house of commons and turned to my neighbour and colleague and said _ turned to my neighbour and colleague and said that'sjust not possible. now we — and said that'sjust not possible. now we hear it in real terms, and the asbestos issue is something my committee — the asbestos issue is something my committee has also looked at and that is— committee has also looked at and that is a _ committee has also looked at and that is a real worry because it is the same — that is a real worry because it is the same era as asbestos was put in and that— the same era as asbestos was put in and that hasn't been factored in. you have — and that hasn't been factored in. you have asbestos and raac in some of those classrooms are. in diii of those classrooms are. in all those schools, _ of those classrooms are. in all those schools, yes. _ of those classrooms are. in all those schools, yes. you i of those classrooms are. in all those schools, yes. you said l of those classrooms are. in all| those schools, yes. you said at of those classrooms are. in all i those schools, yes. you said at the week and this _ those schools, yes. you said at the week and this is _ those schools, yes. you said at the week and this is just _ those schools, yes. you said at the

week and this is just the _ those schools, yes. you said at the week and this is just the tip - those schools, yes. you said at the week and this isjust the tip of- those schools, yes. you said at the week and this is just the tip of the l week and this is just the tip of the iceberg will stop what did you mean? in terms of schools, the raac schools — in terms of schools, the raac schools only account for a small proportion— schools only account for a small proportion of pupils in england. looking — proportion of pupils in england. looking at raac more generally, five days after— looking at raac more generally, five days after the committee met injuly we went— days after the committee met injuly we went to _ days after the committee met injuly we went to visit schools in cambridgeshire with raac will stop them and _ cambridgeshire with raac will stop them and showing us around was unable _ them and showing us around was unable to— them and showing us around was unable to go on the roof to check it. unable to go on the roof to check it he _ unable to go on the roof to check it he was— unable to go on the roof to check it he was in— unable to go on the roof to check it. he was in charge of the raac programme, he was 17 stone and too heavy— programme, he was 17 stone and too heavy for— programme, he was 17 stone and too heavy for the roof. in that hospital they can't — heavy for the roof. in that hospital they can't have overweight patients having _ they can't have overweight patients having surgery on the first floor for example because the bed and equipment and staff or be too heavy. at the _ equipment and staff or be too heavy. at the weekend the matron is on speed _ at the weekend the matron is on speed dial— at the weekend the matron is on speed dial with the man in charge of raac_ speed dial with the man in charge of raac because it is too dangerous and she needs _ raac because it is too dangerous and she needs to keep in liaison with him _ she needs to keep in liaison with him. imagine being a matron in hospital— him. imagine being a matron in hospital and while your focus should be on _ hospital and while your focus should be on patients and care you have to focus _ be on patients and care you have to focus on _ be on patients and care you have to focus on that as well. in the hospital— focus on that as well. in the

hospital sector it is 685 million set aside — hospital sector it is 685 million set aside for five years just for mitigation. to repeat the figure, people _ mitigation. to repeat the figure, people might be shocked to learn it, £685 million in the five years to 2025— £685 million in the five years to 2025 set — £685 million in the five years to 2025 set aside just for mitigation. they are — 2025 set aside just for mitigation. they are supposed to be at the end of their— they are supposed to be at the end of their life — they are supposed to be at the end of their life in 2035 but that money runs out _ of their life in 2035 but that money runs out in— of their life in 2035 but that money runs out in 2025 at the moment so there _ runs out in 2025 at the moment so there is— runs out in 2025 at the moment so there is a — runs out in 2025 at the moment so there is a huge looming problem in there is a huge looming problem in the health— there is a huge looming problem in the health sector as well.— the health sector as well. looking back over the _ the health sector as well. looking back over the last _ the health sector as well. looking back over the last few _ the health sector as well. looking back over the last few years, i the health sector as well. looking back over the last few years, has | back over the last few years, has all the money that was put aside for capital spending on hospitals, has that been used on the infrastructure?- that been used on the infrastructure? ., .,. infrastructure? no. in fact five ears infrastructure? no. in fact five years ago _ infrastructure? no. in fact five years ago we _ infrastructure? no. in fact five years ago we asked _ infrastructure? no. in fact five years ago we asked a - infrastructure? no. in fact five i years ago we asked a committee raised _ years ago we asked a committee raised real— years ago we asked a committee raised real concerns about this. the department of health encouraged hospitals to move some of their capital— hospitals to move some of their capital funding, the funding for building. — capital funding, the funding for building, into money for revenue on day to— building, into money for revenue on day to day— building, into money for revenue on day to day spending was up £43 billion— day to day spending was up £43 billion was— day to day spending was up £43 billion was raided from the budget supporting physical buildings to plu- supporting physical buildings to plug the hole in day to day spending. we currently have a £10 billion— spending. we currently have a £10

billion plus deficit in capital funding _ billion plus deficit in capital funding needs for hospitals. five ears funding needs for hospitals. five years ago. _ funding needs for hospitals. five years ago. if— funding needs for hospitals. five years ago. if we _ funding needs for hospitals. five years ago. if we try _ funding needs for hospitals. f a: years ago, if we try to remember funding needs for hospitals. f 2 years ago, if we try to remember who the health secretary was then, jeremy hunt was health secretary... if i've got this right, halfway through 2018 and then it was matt hancock. one of those two made the decision to take money from the capital budget, to suggest to hospitals, take money from the capital budget and use it for day to day costs. in capital budget and use it for day to da costs. ., . . ., , , day costs. in accounting terms it is shockin: day costs. in accounting terms it is shocking because _ day costs. in accounting terms it is shocking because the _ day costs. in accounting terms it is shocking because the finance i shocking because the finance director— shocking because the finance director my own hospital, a relatively small one in east london said they— relatively small one in east london said they would not do that, they don't _ said they would not do that, they don't think— said they would not do that, they don't think it's proper, but if you run a _ don't think it's proper, but if you run a very— don't think it's proper, but if you run a very big trust you can imagine the pressure — run a very big trust you can imagine the pressure from the government ieaning _ the pressure from the government ieaning on— the pressure from the government leaning on you to do that, and that's— leaning on you to do that, and that's what happened, £43 billion diverted _ that's what happened, £43 billion diverted. spent on health, but not on buildings which are now causing problems — on buildings which are now causing problems. you on buildings which are now causing roblems. ., ., ., ., ~ ., problems. you are a labour mp and ou would problems. you are a labour mp and you would expect — problems. you are a labour mp and you would expect me _ problems. you are a labour mp and you would expect me to _ problems. you are a labour mp and you would expect me to ask- problems. you are a labour mp and you would expect me to ask about | you would expect me to ask about what labour would do if your party wins the next election. your shadow chancellor has already pushed back really big and major infrastructure

spending on the green economy and she and her team have made it clear that because of her self—imposed fiscal rules there is a limit to what she will borrow for spending on infrastructure. correct? yes. that is a massive _ infrastructure. correct? yes. that is a massive headache for labour if it wins the next general election because suddenly a whole load of money will be needed to fix the buildings of sarah skinner's school. what commitment can you give her? this is a real challenge for any new government coming in, we will be faced _ government coming in, we will be faced with — government coming in, we will be faced with this challenge of schools, the challenge of hospitals, the challenge of underinvestment in housing _ the challenge of underinvestment in housing as _ the challenge of underinvestment in housing as well. there has to be hard _ housing as well. there has to be hard and — housing as well. there has to be hard and brutal choices made was that we _ hard and brutal choices made was that we have seen this government make _ that we have seen this government make choices, for example putting eye watering money into three school sites. _ eye watering money into three school sites. sums— eye watering money into three school sites, sums spent instead on infrastructure in existing schools. we know — infrastructure in existing schools. we know keir starmer and rachel reeves _ we know keir starmer and rachel reeves will be up for making these choices— reeves will be up for making these choices but we will be spending that money— choices but we will be spending that money better. choices but we will be spending that money better-— choices but we will be spending that money better. look sarah skinner in

the e e money better. look sarah skinner in the eye and — money better. look sarah skinner in the eye and tell _ money better. look sarah skinner in the eye and tell her, _ money better. look sarah skinner in the eye and tell her, do _ money better. look sarah skinner in the eye and tell her, do you - the eye and tell her, do you genuinely believe if labour win the next election they will borrow billions and billions to sort out the school estate was that we need to find a way to sorting out the school estate and have a plan for safe redeveloped of schools over time. ~ . . , safe redeveloped of schools over time. . ., ., , , safe redeveloped of schools over time. . . ., i, ., safe redeveloped of schools over time. . . ., i, ,.,.u, ., time. we have a very big backlog and it will be a big _ time. we have a very big backlog and it will be a big challenge _ time. we have a very big backlog and it will be a big challenge to _ time. we have a very big backlog and it will be a big challenge to do - time. we have a very big backlog and it will be a big challenge to do it. i it will be a big challenge to do it. there _ it will be a big challenge to do it. there is— it will be a big challenge to do it. there is no— it will be a big challenge to do it. there is no easy answer on how that will be _ there is no easy answer on how that will be funded and that's where rachel— will be funded and that's where rachel reeves is very robust about knowing _ rachel reeves is very robust about knowing she will have to make and a labour _ knowing she will have to make and a labour government will have to make very tough— labour government will have to make very tough decisions about priorities. i think it's very clear in 97— priorities. i think it's very clear in 97 there _ priorities. i think it's very clear in 97 there was more money available and we _ in 97 there was more money available and we could — in 97 there was more money available and we could make these plans. it�*s and we could make these plans. it's and we could make these plans. it's a totall and we could make these plans. it�*s a totally different situation. exactly. we know that. important every— exactly. we know that. important every body understands that if labour — every body understands that if labour got into government next time it wouldn't— labour got into government next time it wouldn't be the milk and honey, relatively— it wouldn't be the milk and honey, relatively as it was in 97, there will be — relatively as it was in 97, there will be very hard choices.- will be very hard choices. very briefl , will be very hard choices. very briefly. how — will be very hard choices. very briefly, how do _ will be very hard choices. very briefly, how do you _ will be very hard choices. very briefly, how do you to - will be very hard choices. very briefly, how do you to that? i will be very hard choices. , briefly, how do you to that? would they do something if they won? the statement over time worries me. we haven't— statement over time worries me. we haven't got— statement over time worries me. we haven't got time, our children deserve — haven't got time, our children deserve that now.

nick's here. we're nearly seven days into this. could this be a defining election issue? it could be a year or more away. you listen to sarah _ it could be a year or more away. gm. listen to sarah and you realise it could well become one of those defining moments. it all boils down to the safety of children and is this government to blame for the question marks over that? the government will say this concrete is the fault of multiple governments going back 60 years will stop i spoke to one government minister who said the music has stopped and we in this government are holding the parcel. that means the focus then turns onto the record of this government was that there are questions that you were asking david laws about, who was minister at the beginning of this government during the coalition, about cuts to the schools maintenance and building budgets. the other question is, is the government gripping it right now and were they to secretive and too slow in publishing the list of schools. keir starmer today talked about the covenant as being cowboy builders and he is trying to create

the impression they have been cavalier in the last decade over those cuts and that they are now out of touch. you put all of that with a general feeling amongst conservative mps that their government is struggling generally to find its footing. i was talking to one conservative mp who is an absolute ultra rishi sunak loyalist and this person said to me, this summer didn't go well for this government, it all seemed to backfire and now the narrative is everything just seems to be going wrong. that is from a really strong loyalist of the prime minister. on the schools rishi sunak is saying he absolutely understands the concerns of parents and says this government is gripping it, and you should remember that just 1% of schools are affected and on that capital budget he said the funding for schools maintenance and building over this parliament will be 2.6 billion a year.— be 2.6 billion a year. nick, thank ou. well, rishi sunak will fly out to the g20 summit

in india this weekend, putting around 4,000 miles between him and the concrete crisis. it's now all but certain that china's xijinping will not be turning up. joe biden, who had been hoping to use some facetime with president xi to help improve dire us relations with beijing, is "disappointed" by the no—show. so what should we read into it? is it part of a beijing global powerplay? or does it reflect the current crisis in the chinese economy? and what could it all mean for what some have labelled a second cold war between the west and china? in a moment, we'll hearfrom one of america's top diplomats — former us secretary of state condoleeza rice, who has some advice for president xi. first, here's ben. it's not quite hamlet without the prince but it's certainly a rather glaring absence. beijing has all but confirmed that china's leader xi jinping will not be attending the meeting of the 620 in new delhi at the weekend. his deputy li qiang will attend instead. the no—show comes at a rather important geopolitical moment. following the visit of house speaker nancy pelosi

to taiwan and the white house's sanctions on advanced semiconductor exports to china, there had been moves between china and the us to remove some of the froideur of what some had labelled cold war two, with, for instance, the us climate envoyjohn kerry travelling to beijing. indeed, the us president has suggested he was looking forward to talking face—to—face with his chinese counterpart. i am disappointed. but i'm going to get to see him. the reasons for the absence of the chinese leader are unclear. it's been noted that apart from during the pandemic, xi jinping attended all the other 620 meetings held since he was made leader. and he attended the recent brics summit with russia, india and brazil, and hosted by south africa. and some have suggested that points to a sense of where xi feels his attention should be focused — on building new, non—western orientated forums. xi jinping's ultimate goal is to present the world with an alternative to the existing

liberal international order, which is dominated by the united states. and in order to do so, brics, or rather an expanded brics, which is all in the global south, will be able to present and help china to achieve such an objective far more effectively than the g20. and i think that is why the 620 is being seen as less important to china than brics is. another suggestion is that it's perhaps convenient for xi to be absent from this 620 meeting to avoid awkward questions about the fragile state of china's economy. though this in turn raises an interesting question. does the fact that china is in now what some have characterised as a full—blown economic crisis — plunging exports, tottering real estate, soaring youth unemployment — does that change the dynamics around the geopolitical relationship with the west and the perceived

need to de—risk supply chains and decouple? in short, does an economically weaker china make it less of a threat to the west than it seemed last year? in 2011, the us investment bank goldman sachs projected that china would overtake the us economy in 2026. now it thinks this won't take place until 2035. and another forecasting group, capital economics, is now projecting, on account of the country's structural economic problems, that it will never happen. if the so—called thucydides trap relates to the likelihood of war when a rising power challenges and existing power, could a chinese economic slowdown mean that logic doesn't apply? some people think that a weakened and more challenged china economically may be tempted to become more nationalistic and more aggressive in terms of its foreign policy, including with respect to taiwan and in the south china sea. equally, you might argue that a very strong and strident china

that was getting its way was also a bit of a threat. so i'm not sure that this discussion gets us anywhere. i think we have just to be aware that china is likely to be a more unstable place in the future economically, and it could have political repercussions that we need to be aware of. meeting jaw to jaw is better than war, said winston churchill in the 19505 during the original cold war. the same is likely to be true in its successor, too. the us secretary of state, antony blinken, is in kyiv right now, insisting the us will "walk side—by—side ukraine". i've been speaking to one of his predecessors, condoleezza rice, secretary of state under president george w bush. we talked about ukraine. but ahead of that 620 summit, i started by asking her what she means when she says that there is now a serious rivalry between the us and china. in recent years, i think china took what it did

from the international system, from the international economy, built stronger military capability. xijinping came to power talking about supplanting the united states in technological prowess, more threatening behaviour toward its neighbors in the south china sea. and that really produced a backlash. and so this is a different china than the china with which we dealt. and it's a different us—china relationship as a result. may i cut to the chase? how likely do you think conflict over taiwan is? well, it certainly cannot be ruled out. and the way to avoid that conflict is to make certain that taiwan is prepared militarily, that the united states is in a position to resist chinese aggression in the region. that means making sure that we rebuild american military power in the region, the pacific fleet, so to speak, and saying to china that it is in no one's interest to have a conflict in the taiwan straits.

how should the west get the balance right when it comes to china between defence and engagement, between defending ourselves against any threat and engaging on trade and on climate change? well, i don't think that by any means are these mutually exclusive. one can be strong, and to say to the chinese, no, the taiwan straits are not chinese waters, they're international waters. no, you don't have the right to go back on what you agreed in 1997 in terms of hong kong. to say to the chinese, no, we will not accept limits on freedom of navigation or freedom of aviation in the region. but with those ground rules, we are ready to cooperate. we want to see china capable of prosperity for its peaceful people, but peacefully. we want to cooperate on climate change. but then when the us representative john kerry shows up in beijing to talk about cooperation, don't make a speech that says china

is going to go its own way. that really was, i thought, a slap in the face of the united states. and so i guess what i'm saying is this isn't all up to the united states. this is up to beijing as well. but a backlash can't be sanctions, can it? you look at the international response to russia when it comes to sanctions after the full scale invasion of ukraine. the west couldn't do that with china because the rest of the world is pretty dependent on the chinese economy. well, you couldn't do that. and the russian economy was essentially through oil and gas and relatively minor integration into the international economy even

many, many years after the collapse of the soviet union. but i think the chinese are understanding that there could be secondary sanctions for certain kinds of behavior. that's why i think they've been very careful in what kind of support they give to the russians and the war in ukraine. you'll remember when our administration, the biden administration, correctly put out the intelligence that we knew that the chinese were considering lethal aid to russia, they ran away from that very, very quickly, because i do think that they understand that there would be secondary sanctions if something like that happened. there are reports that president xi isn't going to turn up to the g20 this weekend in delhi. is that a big deal? well, it would certainly be a very big deal if he doesn't, because china's been on something of a charm offensive for years. it was wolf warrior diplomacy in australia was gum under the shoe of china and threatening behaviour. and then all of a sudden we started getting another face of xi jinping trying to make peace between the saudis and the iranians, offering up peace proposals, as flawed as they were, for ukraine, and now not to go to the 620 after going to the so—called brics conference. i think that would be a very big, a very big and bad signal to a country that is on the rise. how long do you think us support for ukraine will last?

i believe the american people have the dna from our now long years of global leadership to understand that we cannot tolerate a larger country deciding to extinguish its smaller neighbour, that that's a world in which we will not want to live. the american president, whoever that is now or can be in the future, can, of course, appeal to the sense that americans are also tired of global... can't someone else do it? but i think in the final analysis, when challenged, america and its people have always come through — in world war one, world war two, with 9/11 and now in ukraine. and i think you will see it again. that's quite confident of you to say that. why do you have such faith when you will hear the discourse amongst republican candidates who are pretty emphatic, most of them, that us aid would stop? were they to become the republican candidate? and then win the presidential election? well, actually, most of them are on the other side.

if you wanted to just take a count, i think you would find three camps. there are those who are very strongly in support of ukraine and make the argument in a way that i think is quite compelling that it is in america's interest to make certain that vladimir putin's aggression does not win. there are those who maybe are hedging their bets a little bit and talk about wanting to have better evidence that ukraine is spending the money well and so forth and so on, but by no means suggesting that they would withdraw support. and then finally, yes, there are some isolationist voices. but again... who are leading the polls. well, yes. but, you know, polls at this point in america are first impressions. and i would really counsel against reading too much into the polls. and once someone becomes president of the united states, i think they will find that it is not a sustainable position to allow the world to come crashing down around us and america to do nothing. i think any american president will find that that's going to actually ultimately be a very unpopular position

with the american people. due believe the weak response of the west in 2008 to russia invaded georgia ultimately emboldened president putin and it led to his forces i do think he's shocked

because over the years, he's... about modern day rasputin types who spoke about his destiny to recreate the russian empire.— spoke about his destiny to recreate the russian empire. there was a mega mania that made _ the russian empire. there was a mega mania that made him _ the russian empire. there was a mega mania that made him blind _ the russian empire. there was a mega mania that made him blind to - the russian empire. there was a mega mania that made him blind to what i mania that made him blind to what might happen. haifa mania that made him blind to what might happen-— mania that made him blind to what might happen. how should the west re are for might happen. how should the west prepare for the _ might happen. how should the west prepare for the possibility _ might happen. how should the west prepare for the possibility of - might happen. how should the west prepare for the possibility of trump | prepare for the possibility of trump mark two? well, the west should simply prepare for the american people to have an election. and then let's see who's president of the united states. and i'll trust our system to to do what it's done to bring the right person into the white house

at the right time. when you look at the state of the world right now, how does it compare to when you served in the bush administration, when there was 9/11, the war in afghanistan, despite terrorism and the fears that that brought and the horrors of 9/11 and everything that we faced after, i think this may be is a more dangerous period. great power rivalry brings its own character with great powers and all of their military power and their economic clout, they can really have a huge impact on the world and sometimes a dangerous one. it's a depressing thought that we've ended on. well, i don't want to end on a depressing thought, because i'm a university professor, as you just called me, professor rice. and i get to go to work every day with young people who are determined to change the world. they're in a bit of a hurry. they don't always have their facts right. they think if they've googled it, they've researched it.

but they are the most public—minded generation that i've ever taught in my decades of teaching. and i think if we insist that they learn, if we insist that they slow down and listen to those who may not agree with them, they're going to be quite extraordinary. and they give me a lot of hope. thank you very much, professor rice, for talking to us on newsnight. thank you. in the waters of the red sea, a huge oil tanker has been sitting idle since the outbreak of the civil war in yemen eight years ago. owned by yemen's national energy company, the slowly decaying boat became another casualty in a war that has pushed the country into humanitarian crisis. but its cargo — a vast load of crude oil — set it up to be potentially the worst oil—related disaster in history. that is until a un operation in august finally managed to transfer oil off the boat.

emir has this week's good newsnight. a hulking behemoth, abandoned for eight years. its skeleton rusting between the fierce sun and some of the saltiest seawater in the world. in its hull, over a million barrels of crude oil. a time bomb ticking, threatening unprecedented environmental devastation. it was quite amazing, pulling up to the fso saferfor the first time. i'd not seen it before. it's a monster of a boat. it's huge. almost 400 m long. it was like seeing an underwater wreck, but above water, in many ways. owned by yemen's national energy company, the fso safer became collateral damage in the country's grinding civil war — one that has claimed thousands of lives and destroyed industry. but anchored five miles out at sea, in perhaps more pacific territory, the safer

wasn't completely abandoned. it was left with a very small skeleton crew, maybe six crew members, that stayed on board the whole time of the war. in 2020, there was actually a flooding of the engine room that could have brought the safer down at that time. but they sounded the alarm and some local divers did come in to put patches below water, and sealed it off so it wouldn't sink. so that was actually very heroic and nobody knows about it, really. since 2015, anxiety began building that a failure to fund an operation could result — whether by leak or explosion — in potentially history's worst oil spill, into the red sea's emerald waters, home to some of the world's richest coral reefs, devastating local livelihoods and blocking the key artery of food imports to the north of yemen. the fishing industry, it will be stopped.