next it's newsnight.

did break the law.

they apologised to prince harry for serious intrusion into his private life. could criminal proceedings now follow? and why has a russian spy ship passed through uk waters again this week? we'll ask a defence minister what president putin is up to. good evening, welcome to newsnight live each weeknight from broadcasting house. your panellists tonight are marvin rees, who will soon become a labour peer in the house of lords, and anita boateng, former conservative advisor. the owners of the sun — rupert murdoch's news group newspapers — admitted for the first time today that there was unlawful activity by private investigators hired by the paper in order to pry into the private

life of prince harry. they said sorry to him and for intruding into the life of his late mother diana. they also apologised to tom watson the former deputy leader of labour for "unwarranted intrusion" into his life. today's acknowledgement of those unlawful actitivies by private investigators working for the sun comes 1a years after rebekah brooks, the former editor of the sun and news of the world, was questioned by a committee of mps, including tom watson, on the subject of phone hacking, and she was asked this by mr watson — "as a journalist and editor of news of the world and the sun, how extensively did you work with private detectives?" her answer, "on the sun, not at all". she went on to explain that everyone had used private detectives, but in the 2000s fleet street changed its ways and mostly stopped using them — and she added this. i was then editor of the sun, and i can say, absolutely, that the sun is a very clean ship,

a great newsroom. £10 million is reported to have been paid by news group newspapers to prince harry and lord watson. it was settled moments before a full trial was due to begin. let's talk to chris huhne, who was an mp whose phone was hacked by the news of the world and received damages. he was acutally due to be cross examined in this case had it gone ahead. this is the first time the sun has admitted unlawful activity, how significant is that? the significance _ significant is that? the significance is - significant is that? the significance is that - significant is that? the | significance is that they significant is that? tue: significance is that they have denied under oath in a court case, under oath at the levenson inquiry, and again and again publicly that this ever happened. so they have finally admitted something which they have actually been lying about, notjust ordinarily lying, but lying

under oath. the real question now becomes, was this ignorance? were they totally incompetent? 0r becomes, was this ignorance? were they totally incompetent? or were they totally incompetent? or were they actually knowingly trying to mislead a court of law and a public inquiry? if it is the latter, that is perjury. and if it's perjury, that in itself is a criminal offence. so somebody at news is in pretty hot water for that reason. to ut pretty hot water for that reason. to put their point of view, they would say, look, these were private investigators, rebekah brooks for example might never have known the private investigators were hired. tt you hire a private investigator, i'm sure the same system works at the bbc, certainly when i was a journalist, if you hire anybody outside, you have to pay them. they don't usually do it because there are part—time members of the salvation army. but are part-time members of the salvation army.— are part-time members of the salvation army. but they may not sin salvation army. but they may not si . n the salvation army. but they may not sign the checks _ salvation army. but they may not sign the checks for _ salvation army. but they may not sign the checks for payment. - sign the checks for payment.

somebody has to sign them. the editor is responsible. and usually a few saucy story which is interesting as an editor, the first thing you want to know is how great is the source? is it something that will cause us embarrassment as a newspaper or is it really well sourced? in that case, i don't believe rebekah brooks is incompetent, i think there is a serious problem here for them at the police will get on them. find serious problem here for them at the police will get on them.— police will get on them. and that would be for _ police will get on them. and that would be for them _ police will get on them. and that would be for them to _ police will get on them. and that would be for them to investigate | police will get on them. and that i would be for them to investigate if they choose to. lord watson is saying that he is sending a dossier to the metropolitan police. t to the metropolitan police. i entirely agree with him. lord wharton and gordon brown have called for a renewed police investigation. would that be a good use of public money? pm would that be a good use of public mone ? �* ~ would that be a good use of public mone ? �* . , , ., , money? an excellent use. the people who are in power— money? an excellent use. the people who are in power at _ money? an excellent use. the people who are in power at a _ money? an excellent use. the people who are in power at a news _ money? an excellent use. the people who are in power at a news group - money? an excellent use. the people who are in power at a news group are| who are in power at a news group are still there. the people who were responsible for these admitted illegal acts are solder— rupert murdoch, rebekah brooks, james murdoch. == murdoch, rebekah brooks, james murdoch. , .,

murdoch. -- still there. ithought this trial was _ murdoch. -- still there. ithought this trial was going _ murdoch. -- still there. i thought this trial was going to _ murdoch. -- still there. ithought this trial was going to be - murdoch. -- still there. ithought| this trial was going to be replaced by the allegations which prince harry has made about a corporate cover—up of this kind of activity was going to be exposed. i cover-up of this kind of activity was going to be exposed. i thought that was the _ was going to be exposed. i thought that was the real _ was going to be exposed. i thought that was the real thing _ was going to be exposed. i thought that was the real thing that - was going to be exposed. i thought that was the real thing that they i that was the real thing that they wanted to avoid seeing exposed in court, the fact that those enormous... court, the fact that those enormous. . ._ court, the fact that those enormous... ~ , , , enormous... why did they settle? here i enormous. .. why did they settle? here i think— enormous... why did they settle? here i think they _ enormous... why did they settle? here i think they settled - enormous... why did they settle? here i think they settled because | here i think they settled because the fundamental issue in a court case is about some sort of admission. it case is about some sort of admission-— case is about some sort of admission. ., , ., , ., admission. if one side has admitted unlawful activity. — admission. if one side has admitted unlawful activity, what _ admission. if one side has admitted unlawful activity, what is _ admission. if one side has admitted unlawful activity, what is the - admission. if one side has admitted unlawful activity, what is the court i unlawful activity, what is the court case about? you cannotjust run a court case because it would be interesting theatre for journalists and media. there has got to be a legal issue. they actually, astonishingly, come out and said, yes, despite the fact that we told people under oath that we had not done any unlawful activity in a court, at the levenson inquiry, and again and again in public, they have now said, yes, we actually did act unlawfully. you know, that is a big

step forward. unlawfully. you know, that is a big step forward-— step forward. they did not see we acted unlawfully. _ step forward. they did not see we acted unlawfully. i'm _ step forward. they did not see we acted unlawfully. i'm sorry- step forward. they did not see we acted unlawfully. i'm sorry to - step forward. they did not see we acted unlawfully. i'm sorry to be i acted unlawfully. i'm sorry to be pedantic, i'mjust acted unlawfully. i'm sorry to be pedantic, i'm just going by the wording of the apology today. anybody gresini evidence in this case, as i did having gone through it all... with case, as i did having gone through it all- -- wit— it all... with without telling us the details, — it all... with without telling us the details, using _ it all... with without telling us the details, using there - it all... with without telling us the details, using there are i it all... with without telling us - the details, using there are details that the newsgroup did not want to come out, that is why they settled? totally. come out, that is why they settled? totall . , , ., , totally. they seem to be saying prince harry _ totally. they seem to be saying prince harry settle _ totally. they seem to be saying prince harry settle because - totally. they seem to be saying prince harry settle because he. totally. they seem to be saying i prince harry settle because he saw the list of witnesses and said, i cannot do this.— cannot do this. most of the witnesses _ cannot do this. most of the witnesses who _ cannot do this. most of the witnesses who should - cannot do this. most of the witnesses who should havej cannot do this. most of the - witnesses who should have been cross—examined on behalf of newsgroup did not come, including rebekah brooks, many of the people who were editors and people in responsibility, including most importantly, the news corp executive fred michel, who in an e—mail which has been issued publicly said firmly, i should has been issued publicly said firmly, ishould be has been issued publicly said firmly, i should be targeted. has been issued publicly said firmly, ishould be targeted. let has been issued publicly said firmly, i should be targeted. let me brini in firmly, i should be targeted. let me

bring in anita _ firmly, i should be targeted. let me bring in anita boateng _ firmly, i should be targeted. let me bring in anita boateng and - firmly, i should be targeted. let me bring in anita boateng and marvin . bring in anita boateng and marvin rees. it is true that most people do not read newspapers, but they do see libellous, offensive, horrific, racist, pornographic stuff on social media. isn't that the battle for the future? i media. isn't that the battle for the future? ., media. isn't that the battle for the future? ~ ,., future? i think the battle in journalism _ future? i think the battle in journalism is _ future? i think the battle in journalism is to _ future? i think the battle in journalism is to come - future? i think the battle in journalism is to come up i future? i think the battle in l journalism is to come up with future? i think the battle in - journalism is to come up with a forum — journalism is to come up with a forum in— journalism is to come up with a forum in which we can have the quality— forum in which we can have the quality of— forum in which we can have the quality of conversations we need in a challenging world. most people do not interact with politics and real political — not interact with politics and real political debates, the interact with the journalistic interpretation. if that interpretation throws us into simplistic, — that interpretation throws us into simplistic, superficial binary options _ simplistic, superficial binary options that are more about sensations and insight, we leave our population— sensations and insight, we leave our population is ill—equipped to cope with the _ population is ill—equipped to cope with the world the way it is. i think— with the world the way it is. i think that _ with the world the way it is. i think that is a massive challenge to the quality— think that is a massive challenge to the quality of our democracy. | the quality of our democracy. would the quality of our democracy. i would add one thing, it is about truth _ would add one thing, it is about truth we — would add one thing, it is about truth. we live _ would add one thing, it is about truth. we live in _ would add one thing, it is about truth. we live in a _ would add one thing, it is about truth. we live in a society- would add one thing, it is about| truth. we live in a society where basically — truth. we live in a society where basically anybody _ truth. we live in a society where basically anybody can _ truth. we live in a society where basically anybody can be - truth. we live in a society where basically anybody can be a - basically anybody can be a pubiishen _ basically anybody can be a publisher. you _ basically anybody can be a publisher. you see - basically anybody can be a publisher. you see the - basically anybody can be a l publisher. you see the sort basically anybody can be a - publisher. you see the sort of things— publisher. you see the sort of things that _ publisher. you see the sort of things that circulate _ publisher. you see the sort of things that circulate on - publisher. you see the sort of things that circulate on social| things that circulate on social media — things that circulate on social media that _ things that circulate on social media that are _ things that circulate on social media that are based - things that circulate on social media that are based on- things that circulate on social media that are based on no. things that circulate on social. media that are based on no facts whatsoeven _ media that are based on no facts whatsoever. they _ media that are based on no facts whatsoever. they then _ media that are based on no facts whatsoever. they then get - media that are based on no facts i whatsoever. they then get whipped

into a _ whatsoever. they then get whipped into a from — whatsoever. they then get whipped into a from i_ whatsoever. they then get whipped into a frenzy. i think— whatsoever. they then get whipped into a frenzy. i think that, - into a frenzy. i think that, although— into a frenzy. i think that, although you _ into a frenzy. i think that, although you are - into a frenzy. i think that, although you are right - into a frenzy. i think that, i although you are right that into a frenzy. i think that, - although you are right that people are not— although you are right that people are not consuming _ although you are right that people are not consuming first _ although you are right that people are not consuming first off, first . are not consuming first off, first order information _ are not consuming first off, first order information via the - are not consuming first off, first . order information via the times or the bbc~~ — order information via the times or the bbc~~ i— order information via the times or the bbc... ithink— order information via the times or the bbc... ithink it— order information via the times or the bbc... i think it counteracts . the bbc... i think it counteracts some _ the bbc... i think it counteracts some of— the bbc... i think it counteracts some of that _ the bbc... i think it counteracts some of that student _ the bbc... i think it counteractsj some of that student journalism the bbc... i think it counteracts - some of that student journalism that occurs— some of that student journalism that occurs that _ some of that student journalism that occurs that canon _ some of that student journalism that occurs that canon spread _ some of that student journalism that occurs that canon spread very - some of that student journalism that occurs that canon spread very light l occurs that canon spread very light misinformation. _ occurs that canon spread very light misinformation. i— occurs that canon spread very light misinformation. i think— occurs that canon spread very light misinformation. i think this - occurs that canon spread very light misinformation. i think this issue l misinformation. i think this issue matters — misinformation. i think this issue matters more _ misinformation. i think this issue matters more than _ misinformation. i think this issue matters more than ever. - misinformation. i think this issue matters more than ever.- misinformation. i think this issue matters more than ever. when you have not matters more than ever. when you have got elon _ matters more than ever. when you have got elon musk— matters more than ever. when you have got elon musk regularly - have got elon musk regularly tweeting on x saying, users of x, you are the media now, is he right? clearly there are new voices. elon mush— clearly there are new voices. elon musk is— clearly there are new voices. elon musk is a — clearly there are new voices. elon musk is a living experiment. it is like lord — musk is a living experiment. it is like lord of— musk is a living experiment. it is like lord of the rings, can one person— like lord of the rings, can one person ail— like lord of the rings, can one person all so much power without being _ person all so much power without being turned into a monster? have we ever had _ being turned into a monster? have we ever had someone with so much power, so much _ ever had someone with so much power, so much direct— ever had someone with so much power, so much direct action into the lives and minds — so much direct action into the lives and minds of the world's population, i and minds of the world's population, i don't _ and minds of the world's population, idon't think— and minds of the world's population, i don't think so. it is a frightening moment in history. there are publishers all over the place,

people _ are publishers all over the place, people just sending out their opinion, _ people just sending out their opinion, no fact checking, no real expertise — opinion, no fact checking, no real expertise it— opinion, no fact checking, no real expertise. it is a massive problem. the challenge for professional journalism in all of that, and i think— journalism in all of that, and i think the _ journalism in all of that, and i think the profession needs to be honest— think the profession needs to be honest about it, as everyone is fighting — honest about it, as everyone is fighting for eyeballs, fighting for attention. 0ne fighting for eyeballs, fighting for attention. one of the things i'm concerned — attention. one of the things i'm concerned about when i see what we call professionaljournalism is sometimes they need themselves to indulge _ sometimes they need themselves to indulge sensation to keep up with the sensation that comes from social media _ the sensation that comes from social media to _ the sensation that comes from social media tojustify the the sensation that comes from social media to justify the jobs. they have to be _ media to justify the jobs. they have to be honest about that because it undermines the quality of professionaljournalism. fine undermines the quality of professionaljournalism. professional “ournalism. one final thin . professional “ournalism. one final thin i professionaljournalism. one final thing i would _ professionaljournalism. one final thing i would say _ professionaljournalism. one final thing i would say is _ professionaljournalism. one final thing i would say is that _ professionaljournalism. one final thing i would say is that of- professionaljournalism. one final thing i would say is that of course | thing i would say is that of course we are _ thing i would say is that of course we are seeing— thing i would say is that of course we are seeing declining _ thing i would say is that of course we are seeing declining physical. we are seeing declining physical paper— we are seeing declining physical paper sales. _ we are seeing declining physical paper sales. but _ we are seeing declining physical paper sales, but if— we are seeing declining physical paper sales, but if you - we are seeing declining physical paper sales, but if you look- we are seeing declining physical paper sales, but if you look at l we are seeing declining physical. paper sales, but if you look at the podcasts, — paper sales, but if you look at the podcasts, the _ paper sales, but if you look at the podcasts, the numerous- paper sales, but if you look at the podcasts, the numerous ways - paper sales, but if you look at the podcasts, the numerous ways in i paper sales, but if you look at the - podcasts, the numerous ways in which journalists _ podcasts, the numerous ways in which journalists can — podcasts, the numerous ways in which journalists can spread _ podcasts, the numerous ways in which journalists can spread information, - journalists can spread information, engage _ journalists can spread information, engage audiencesm _ journalists can spread information, engage audiences... find - journalists can spread information, engage audiences. . ._ engage audiences. .. and all those newspaper— engage audiences... and all those newspaper selling _ engage audiences... and all those newspaper selling for _ engage audiences... and all those newspaper selling for hard - engage audiences... and all those newspaper selling for hard copies| newspaper selling for hard copies have massive websites.— newspaper selling for hard copies have massive websites. there is a real attempt _ have massive websites. there is a real attempt to — have massive websites. there is a real attempt to explain _ have massive websites. there is a real attempt to explain the - real attempt to explain the background of something... fundamentally, i think people are

background of something... fundamental a i think people are background of something... fundamental a distinction )ple are background of something... fundamental a distinction between able to make a distinction between elon musk blacking out some complete nonsense and an organisation like the bbc that actually does attempt to fact check and make sure that what goes out is real and correct. and indeed has done the fundamentally fair thing that journalists do, which is if you have an accusation, you put it to the person who will be affected. elon musk has never put any of his accusations to anyone and famously then got sued by the guy he accused of being a paedophile from the thai rescue. the fundamental thing about journalism, should be fair and you should put your case to the person and allow them to respond. the point is that if you — and allow them to respond. the point is that if you can _ and allow them to respond. the point is that if you can establish _ and allow them to respond. the point is that if you can establish and - is that if you can establish and reinforce — is that if you can establish and reinforce these _ is that if you can establish and reinforce these principles, - is that if you can establish andl reinforce these principles, they then— reinforce these principles, they then matter— reinforce these principles, they then matter for— reinforce these principles, they then matter for how— reinforce these principles, they then matter for how people - reinforce these principles, they. then matter for how people engage reinforce these principles, they- then matter for how people engage in then matter for how people engage in the online _ then matter for how people engage in the online space _ then matter for how people engage in the online space, as— then matter for how people engage in the online space, as well. _ then matter for how people engage in the online space, as well. i— then matter for how people engage in the online space, as well. i think- the online space, as well. i think it is important— the online space, as well. i think it is important to _ the online space, as well. i think it is important to continue - the online space, as well. i think it is important to continue told . it is important to continue told journalists _ it is important to continue told journalists to _ it is important to continue told journalists to higher— it is important to continue told journalists to higher standardsj it is important to continue told - journalists to higher standards that drive up _ journalists to higher standards that drive up the — journalists to higher standards that drive up the quality _ journalists to higher standards that drive up the quality of _ journalists to higher standards that drive up the quality of debate - drive up the quality of debate because — drive up the quality of debate because there _ drive up the quality of debate because there is _ drive up the quality of debate because there is more -

drive up the quality of debate because there is more fact. drive up the quality of debate i because there is more fact and drive up the quality of debate - because there is more fact and more informatioh — because there is more fact and more informatioh it— because there is more fact and more informatioh it is _ because there is more fact and more information. it is not _ because there is more fact and more information. it is not a _ because there is more fact and more information. it is not a mate - because there is more fact and more information. it is not a mate call. . information. it is not a mate call. thank— information. it is not a mate call. thank you — information. it is not a mate call. thank you very _ information. it is not a mate call. thank you very much _ information. it is not a mate call. thank you very much for - information. it is not a mate call. thank you very much for talking i information. it is not a mate call. i thank you very much for talking to us this evening. anita and marvin will stay with us. and now for the extraordinary story of a russian spy ship that has twice in recent months passed through uk waters, including this week. here's the defence secretaryjohn healey addressing the commons today. let me be clear, this is a russian spy ship used for gathering intelligence and mapping the uk's critical underwater infrastructure. and i also want president putin to hear this message. we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. just before we came on air, i spoke to the defence minister luke pollard and asked why the government chose to go public on this. the key thing we want to get over

to president putin is that we see what he has been doing. we know what he has been doing and we will robustly defend our undersea critical national infrastructure, the underwater cables that so much of our economy relies on. that's why we have declassified the incident that took place in november, that's why we are making public not only that we had royal navy and raf and rsa assets observing what the russian spy ship was doing, but we surfaced a royal navy submarine alongside it to send a very clear message to the russians that we can see what they're doing and we will defend our infrastructure. and when that royal navy sub surfaced by the russian vessel back in november, what did it say to the yantar? it made its presence known. as you would expect, it's a very large submarine when it surfaces. but there would be communication to detail its location there. but what we wanted to do by surfacing the submarine was to make very clear that the crew of the yantar and... what was the warning? we are not publishing details of the wording used at this time.

0k. but what we wanted to do was make sure that putin and the crew knew very much that we were not only observing the activities on the surface with our surface and our aerial assets, but we had underwater assets been able to keep an eye on what they were doing. because the yantar is a ship that's equipped with drone technology able to go down to observe and perhaps do other things to the critical national infrastructure. we wanted them to know that we had the capabilities to observe that activity as well. but despite doing that, despite that warning from our royal navy sub, the yantar came back this week on monday. so you didn't really deter them, did you? the yantar�*s november passage in british territorial waters was from its transition from the northern fleet up in the high north, through british waters, then down into the mediterranean. its transit this week is on its return leg, which is the reason why the defence secretary used this week as an opportunity to make very clear to the russians that we know what they're up to, and that we will defend our assets by providing this publication as a

deterrent from any future activity that the russians may want to undertake in our waters. so they have done the journey out and the journey back, and you're saying, that's enough now? well, we know that the yantar has been around is not only our own waters but the waters of our allies for quite some time. the activities that the yantar can conduct is a direct threat to our underwater infrastructure. i am suggesting to you they are ignoring you. the reason we have made this public today, and this is very unusual, we would not normally as the ministry of defence publish this type of activity, and certainly not declassify the amount of information around the activities of our submarine fleet. but by doing this we are sending a very clear signal to putin that we will defend our assets. because the first duty of this government is to keep our country safe and by sending a very clear signal, we are also signposting to our allies that the underwater infrastructure that they rely on as well is an area that we will participate in. because it's notjust about our own waters. we have seen in finland over christmas, the cable break of the estlink2.

we have seen cable attacks right throughout the past year. and what we need to do as a nato alliance, as western countries, is make very clear to all those adversaries that will challenge and seek to interfere with those cables, is that they might be on the sea bed but their critical —— might be on the sea bed but they're critical infrastructure and we will defend them. so just be clear with our audience. what is the russian spy ship trying to do? damage these, this critical infrastructure? surveil it? what? i think the first instance, we would expect the russians to be mapping our infrastructure. because the cables that we have not only carry gas, electricity, communications, but also the huge amount of internet traffic that our economy relies on, and understanding where they are is useful to any adversary. so that's why, when the yantar was loitering over a really important part of that undersea infrastructure in november, we took the steps that we did to make very clear that their presence

was not welcome and when the submarine surfaced, it's a pretty clear signal that it was time for the yantar to move on, and she did. you claim you're going to spend 2.5% of gdp on defence but there is no timeframe or money. some leaders say 2.5%, by the way, should be the floor, as you know, not the ceiling. president trump last night said it should be 5% and defence experts say the uk is increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missile attacks. you have talked tough tonight, john healey was there, saying what's going on today in the commons. but actually, the reality is the uk isn't in that great a position, if you're being honest. in opposition we were very clear that we felt our armed forces had been hollowed out and underfunded. that's why the defence review was launched so soon when taking office last year. it's also... are you saying they're going to get bigger, then? it's also why we're looking at what the capabilities that we need to match the threat. we have announced £3 billion extra in defence spending, so in ourfirst proper budget we have increased defence spending.

and in the spring not only will we publish the defence review, we will also lay out a plan to move from our current defence spending of around 2.3% to the 2.5% that we had in our manifesto. so you will lay out a pathway? a pathway to spending that money. but importantly, the defence review will set out what we're spending it on, because the new capabilities we need to not only keep ourselves safe but defend our allies as well will be different in some cases than technology that we had in the past. quick final question — on social media today, president trump told president putin to make a deal to end what mr trump called the ridiculous war in ukraine or face new tariffs and sanctions. does the uk back him on that? i mean, it's a significant first intervention and it echoes much of the language... do you back him? ..that we've been having over the last year. putin could decide to end the war today if he wanted to, and i think president trump's early intervention taking office so soon, so soon after taking office, is a very clear signal to president putin that he needs to end this war, and that the us, along with our nato allies, will be using maximum pressure both economically and others to bring about the end to this war and put ukraine in the very best

possible position on the battlefield and in any possible negotiations to come. luke pollard, thank you very much for talking to newsnight. thank you. nick, what's been the response in parliament today to the defence secretary's announcement? it's interesting, i was doing my usual thing, which is sort of walking the corridors of parliament, shortly after the defence secretary gave that statement. and a very senior conservative came up to me, who has had a long—standing interest in defence, and said, you've got to get across this statement by the defence secretary, it's really important. because of course there was that disruption between finland and estonia on christmas day, to the undersea cables, and a seniorfigure said, you've got to know about it, and insisted on pressing into my hands a statement by the defence secretary so i could look at it and understand it. it's interesting that james cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary gave it a very, very strong, and did pick up on that revelation you talk to pollard about, that we had, it looks like it

was a nuclear powered submarine p°pplng was a nuclear powered submarine popping up and saying, we are here, though that ship then came back. and the conservatives did give it a warm welcome but in his final remarks, james cartlidge said, please can we make sure we get an announcement on what is happening in defence spending because of the government is talking about 2.5% of gdp on that and we need to have that target outline. and that matters because the president of latvia in davos todayis the president of latvia in davos today is saying that 2.5 should be a flaw, not a ceiling. —— should be a floor, not a ceiling. alex rudakubana, the 18—year—old who killed nine—year—old alice da silva aguiar, six—year—old bebe king and seven—year—old elsie dot stancombe in southport last year, is due to be sentenced tomorrow. today the prime minister announced tougher measures for people buying knives online after it emerged rudakubana bought the knife he used to carry out the attack on amazon. marvin and anita obviously we have this week that this man was known to

police, social services, mental health services, schools, the youth justice system and referred to prevent three times, and not stop. it is much bigger and more complex than age verification on amazon, isn't it? ~ ,,., , �* ~' isn't it? absolutely. and i think when you _ isn't it? absolutely. and i think when you look— isn't it? absolutely. and i think when you look at _ isn't it? absolutely. and i think when you look at those - isn't it? absolutely. and i think. when you look at those numerous moments, the arm of the state coming into contact with this individual, there is a clear pattern that seems to emerge here, of, you know, in action. and so there are lots of questions about his attraction to violence and actually, how you can deter an individual such as that with more targeted and specific and systematic interventions that can capture these kind of incidents before they reach a and heartbreaking conclusion. so i think you're right that actually, we don't want this debate to be just about one facet of this. and i actually thought that starmer�*s speech motor is very wide—ranging, talking about the arm of the law and the state

being equipped to deal with these kinds of acts, which are much more violence motivated, much more individuals acting alone, and the questions of how we deal with that, i think are very complex and i want to see how that unfolds in the coming months.— to see how that unfolds in the coming months. to see how that unfolds in the comini months. . , coming months. hence why the prime minister was — coming months. hence why the prime minister was talking _ coming months. hence why the prime minister was talking about, _ coming months. hence why the prime minister was talking about, do - coming months. hence why the prime minister was talking about, do we - minister was talking about, do we need to change the definition of terrorism? do we need to change terrorism? do we need to change terrorism laws? because this man was not motivated by political or religious ideology. what do you think of this notion of looking at the legislation around terrorism again? i the legislation around terrorism aiain? . ., , ., the legislation around terrorism aiain? . ., , again? i certainly think you can make a case — again? i certainly think you can make a case to _ again? i certainly think you can make a case to do _ again? i certainly think you can make a case to do so. - again? i certainly think you can make a case to do so. but - again? i certainly think you can make a case to do so. but i - again? i certainly think you can i make a case to do so. but i think again? i certainly think you can - make a case to do so. but i think we have _ make a case to do so. but i think we have to _ make a case to do so. but i think we have to do _ make a case to do so. but i think we have to do it incredibly carefully. ithink— have to do it incredibly carefully. i think where we are as a country at the moment— i think where we are as a country at the moment is trying to find language to capture the horror and anger— language to capture the horror and anger we _ language to capture the horror and anger we feel about what has happened. and putting the word terror— happened. and putting the word terror on — happened. and putting the word terror on it serves that purpose. but the — terror on it serves that purpose. but the challenge is, if we use terror— but the challenge is, if we use terror too _ but the challenge is, if we use terror too liberally, it ends up meaning _ terror too liberally, it ends up meaning to many things, too broadly. and it _ meaning to many things, too broadly. and it might— meaning to many things, too broadly. and it might actually mean that we don't _ and it might actually mean that we don't fully— and it might actually mean that we don't fully understand what was going _ don't fully understand what was going on— don't fully understand what was going on in this situation. so we

apply— going on in this situation. so we apply terror tools to a situation that isn't— apply terror tools to a situation that isn't fully served by that and we reduce — that isn't fully served by that and we reduce the likelihood of us preventing this kind of action in the future. so when we talk about multiple _ the future. so when we talk about multiple points of contact, this isn't _ multiple points of contact, this isn't new _ multiple points of contact, this isn't new. we had a situation in bristol— isn't new. we had a situation in bristol 15— isn't new. we had a situation in bristol 15 or— isn't new. we had a situation in bristol 15 or so years ago, when i worked _ bristol 15 or so years ago, when i worked in — bristol 15 or so years ago, when i worked in public health, and key to our capital— worked in public health, and key to our capital might prevent programme of work. _ our capital might prevent programme of work, and we had a young man plotting _ of work, and we had a young man plotting to — of work, and we had a young man plotting to blow up a shopping centre — plotting to blow up a shopping centre -- _ plotting to blow up a shopping centre —— key to our prevent programme. there are points of contact — programme. there are points of contact in — programme. there are points of contact in college, in the mosque, in social— contact in college, in the mosque, in social services, but those points of contact — in social services, but those points of contact for each scene in individual— of contact for each scene in individual aspect of the behaviour but never— individual aspect of the behaviour but never coming together to join individual aspect of the behaviour but never coming together tojoin it together~ _ but never coming together tojoin it together. and as a result he ended up together. and as a result he ended up in _ together. and as a result he ended up in a _ together. and as a result he ended up in a situation where he nearly committed — up in a situation where he nearly committed a major atrocity. but that also speaks — committed a major atrocity. but that also speaks to the challenge of local— also speaks to the challenge of local capacity. do you have the bandwidth, as a local organisation, notjust_ bandwidth, as a local organisation, notjust to — bandwidth, as a local organisation, notjust to do bandwidth, as a local organisation, not just to do your own specific piece _ not just to do your own specific piece of— not just to do your own specific piece of work, but to lift your eyes up piece of work, but to lift your eyes up and _ piece of work, but to lift your eyes up and make the connection with other— up and make the connection with other people as well? | up and make the connection with other people as well?— other people as well? i mean, i foriet other people as well? i mean, i forget how _ other people as well? i mean, i forget how many _ other people as well? i mean, i forget how many times - other people as well? i mean, i forget how many times i've - other people as well? i mean, i - forget how many times i've reported

on these kind of reviews or public inquiries, where the police haven't talked to social services, to the end has come at a mental health services. it comes up time and time again. —— to the nhs, to mental health services. so you saying that lifting eyes up and having the capacity for communication, seems like a no—brainer but it doesn't happen. like a no-brainer but it doesn't hauen. ,~ like a no-brainer but it doesn't hauen. i, like a no-brainer but it doesn't happen. absolutely and it's about the structures _ happen. absolutely and it's about the structures but _ happen. absolutely and it's about the structures but it _ happen. absolutely and it's about the structures but it also - happen. absolutely and it's about the structures but it also comes i the structures but it also comes down to leadership, actually, in different areas, and how much of a priority this is needs, different authorities kinder decide how important this is and how systematically they are going to approach it. and i do think sometimes when we dug by these issues, for instance, knife crime, we think about individual facets and don't understand it's about how you use all the tools together and make sure your information sharing and a real concerted effort across all those different parts of the state to tackle a problem such as this. when you were mayor, were you able to harness the different agencies and bring them together when they

needed to come together or not? brute needed to come together or not? we did, actually. we set up something in did, actually. we setup something in bristol— did, actually. we set up something in bristol called the one city approach where we built a regular rhythm _ approach where we built a regular rhythm where the leaders of key institutions came together. so when we had _ institutions came together. so when we had a _ institutions came together. so when we had a spate of stubborn mergers within— we had a spate of stubborn mergers within bristol, we had further education college, university, police — education college, university, police, health service, voluntary health— police, health service, voluntary health sector, all coming together as a regular way of responding —— when _ as a regular way of responding —— when we — as a regular way of responding —— when we had a spate of stabbing murders. — when we had a spate of stabbing murders, responding notjust a specific— murders, responding notjust a specific incident but the potential overflow — specific incident but the potential overflow like heightened tensions and potential revenge actions. but as a former— and potential revenge actions. but as a former mayor, i need to stress, and this— as a former mayor, i need to stress, and this is— as a former mayor, i need to stress, and this is not... this is a point about— and this is not... this is a point about austerity, right? that i stepped _ about austerity, right? that i stepped into the middle of a period of time _ stepped into the middle of a period of time where we were just investing in local— of time where we were just investing in local places. we were taking money— in local places. we were taking money away. —— we were disinvesting. there _ money away. —— we were disinvesting. there is— money away. —— we were disinvesting. there is two— money away. —— we were disinvesting. there is two major consequences, among _ there is two major consequences, among many. 0ne there is two major consequences, among many. one is our services had less capacity — among many. one is our services had less capacity. and often they were left dealing with crisis and not investing _

left dealing with crisis and not investing in early intervention, because — investing in early intervention, because they are dealing with fire fighting _ because they are dealing with fire fighting on the crisis. also we know from _ fighting on the crisis. also we know from reports is one of the ways you build _ from reports is one of the ways you build resilience as get young people off to _ build resilience as get young people off to the _ build resilience as get young people off to the best possible start in life. off to the best possible start in life we — off to the best possible start in life. we have not functioned in a way that— life. we have not functioned in a way that has proactively build strength and resilience over the years— strength and resilience over the years because we have disinvested in society— years because we have disinvested in society and _ years because we have disinvested in society and ended up with greater vulnerability. i'm not taking away from _ vulnerability. i'm not taking away from the — vulnerability. i'm not taking away from the personal response beauty of this murder— from the personal response beauty of this murder but i am saying you can create _ this murder but i am saying you can create contexts that are more or less likely — create contexts that are more or less likely for these sap and —— the personal— less likely for these sap and —— the personal responsibility of this murderer. we personal responsibility of this murderer-— personal responsibility of this murderer. . , ., ., murderer. we saw cuts made to councils over — murderer. we saw cuts made to councils over a _ murderer. we saw cuts made to councils over a decade - murderer. we saw cuts made to councils over a decade or- murderer. we saw cuts made to councils over a decade or so, i murderer. we saw cuts made to | councils over a decade or so, but with this man, there were interventions, prevent three times, mental health services, the youth justice system, schools, police. he had a lot of contact with a lot of people, and it'a. i

had a lot of contact with a lot of people, and it'a._ people, and it'a. ithink that's absolutely _ people, and it'a. ithink that's absolutely right. _ people, and it'a. ithink that's absolutely right. and - people, and it'a. ithink that's absolutely right. and when i absolutely right. and when frustration i have is that we end up in a situation, to your point, we end up in inquiry upon inquiry when actually i think it's much more about action than it is about understanding, you know... you can always diagnose and get more and more into the detail exactly what went wrong in a particular instance. without the action that's required to really make a concerted difference, in this instance. so i think that is the more challenging bit and this government so far has been good at kind of talking and diagnosing problems without showing it has a plan for tackling them and that's where i think the momentum needs to go next. flan that's where i think the momentum needs to go next.— that's where i think the momentum needs to go next. can i make a point on that? sometimes _ needs to go next. can i make a point on that? sometimes we _ needs to go next. can i make a point on that? sometimes we talk- needs to go next. can i make a point on that? sometimes we talk as i needs to go next. can i make a point i on that? sometimes we talk as though labour— on that? sometimes we talk as though labour not _ on that? sometimes we talk as though labour not been doing things and in cities _ labour not been doing things and in cities across — labour not been doing things and in cities across this country, most of the big _ cities across this country, most of the big city— cities across this country, most of the big city is run by labour authorities, they have been proactive leadership on tackling potential violence, and proactive leadership in reducing the risks of people _ leadership in reducing the risks of people being drawn into being a peppereytte or a victim. do

people being drawn into being a peppereytte or a victim.- people being drawn into being a peppereytte or a victim. do you see an sins peppereytte or a victim. do you see any signs of— peppereytte or a victim. do you see any signs of that — peppereytte or a victim. do you see any signs of that working _ peppereytte or a victim. do you see any signs of that working yet? i peppereytte or a victim. do you see any signs of that working yet? yes, | any signs of that working yet? yes, we have scheme _ any signs of that working yet? yes, we have scheme in _ any signs of that working yet? yes, we have scheme in bristol, - any signs of that working yet? yes, we have scheme in bristol, setting up we have scheme in bristol, setting up an— we have scheme in bristol, setting up an office — we have scheme in bristol, setting up an office for violence prevention, setting up a space for early— prevention, setting up a space for early intervention. 0ther prevention, setting up a space for early intervention. other cities as well~ _ early intervention. other cities as well~ it— early intervention. other cities as well. it happens. gne early intervention. other cities as well. it happens.— well. it happens. one of the interesting _ well. it happens. one of the interesting things _ well. it happens. one of the interesting things keir- well. it happens. one of the i interesting things keir starmer has tried to _ interesting things keir starmer has tried to do — interesting things keir starmer has tried to do this _ interesting things keir starmer has tried to do this week _ interesting things keir starmer has tried to do this week is _ interesting things keir starmer has tried to do this week is address i tried to do this week is address these _ tried to do this week is address these claims _ tried to do this week is address these claims that _ tried to do this week is address these claims that the _ tried to do this week is address. these claims that the authorities withheld — these claims that the authorities withheld crucial— these claims that the authorities withheld crucial details - these claims that the authorities withheld crucial details about i these claims that the authorities i withheld crucial details about axel rudakubana. _ withheld crucial details about axel rudakubana, and _ withheld crucial details about axel rudakubana, and the _ withheld crucial details about axeli rudakubana, and the conservatives have picked — rudakubana, and the conservatives have picked up— rudakubana, and the conservatives have picked up on— rudakubana, and the conservatives have picked up on two _ rudakubana, and the conservatives have picked up on two elements, i rudakubana, and the conservatives. have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery— have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery in— have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery in august _ have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery in august that - have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery in august that he - have picked up on two elements, one is a discovery in august that he was l is a discovery in august that he was in possession — is a discovery in august that he was in possession of— is a discovery in august that he was in possession of rice _ is a discovery in august that he was in possession of rice and, _ is a discovery in august that he was in possession of rice and, and i is a discovery in august that he was in possession of rice and, and the l in possession of rice and, and the second _ in possession of rice and, and the second thing _ in possession of rice and, and the second thing is— in possession of rice and, and the second thing is the _ in possession of rice and, and the second thing is the briefing - in possession of rice and, and the second thing is the briefing to i in possession of rice and, and the second thing is the briefing to the home _ second thing is the briefing to the home office — second thing is the briefing to the home office in— second thing is the briefing to the home office in october— second thing is the briefing to the home office in october that i second thing is the briefing to the home office in october that he i second thing is the briefing to the i home office in october that he was in possession — home office in october that he was in possession of— home office in october that he was in possession of a _ home office in october that he was in possession of a manual- home office in october that he was in possession of a manual detailingj and if you want to carry on watching newsnight, please turn over to bbc two, or watch on iplayer. do stay with us on bbc news for all the latest headlines in the us and around the world from the team here in washington.

this is bbc world news america. in one of his first broadcast interviews since his commutation by president trump, oathkeepers founder stewart rhodes speaks to the bbc. president trump signs an executive order suspending the entry of migrants into the united states at the southern border with mexico. and prince harry gets a unequivocal apology and substantial damages after a 5 year legal battle with rupert murdoch's newspaper empire. welcome to world news america.

welcome to this extended hour of world news america —