live yum jerusalem where people are waking up to the news that israel has attacked iran. iran state news agency reports that air defenses were fired and explosions were heard at isfahan international airport. the impact of the attack is not yet clear, but it does appear to be limited, and iran says they have no plans for immediate retaliation. the foreign secretary, david cameron, is at the g7 summit in italy where we expect to hear more from the u.s. later this morning. and the prime minister is due to speak at 930 a.m. we'll bring you that live. good morning, and welcome back to jerusalem. we're waking up to the news that israel has attacked iran. early indications suggest a single strike on a carefully selected target. iranian state media is reporting

air defenses were fired close to isfahan international airport in central iran at around 4:00 a.m. local time in iran. they say that drones were intercepted, and there were no explosions on the ground. we haven't been able to verify those claims, but iran is down-playing the attack and saying they have no plans for immediate retaliation. well, this video is from the iranian revolutionary guard corp telegram channel. it reportedly shows the explosions in the sky near isfahan. the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog has confirmed there's no damage to iran's nuclear site. ali, we've been following all these developments all week. the war cabinet said they had to respond, they had no choice but to respond. we saw that response in the early hours of the morning. it seems now everyone's trying to de-escalate. >> yeah, it seems that way. the -- the reaction to it is almost entirely coming out of iran. and as you say it's a mix

between down-playing what happened on one hand to mocking it on the other hand. there's a lot of social media posts in iran. there's one of a girl with a paper plane sort of throwing it feebly into a wall, which is mocking israel's attempts to attack iran. i think what all that points to and suggests is that iran is not on the brink of retaliation and perhaps is looking at this is an off-ramp. the other area of reaction is from here in israel with the exception of the right-wing national security minister who would have wanted something far bigger. he's described it as being feeble. but we've heard nothing from the war cabinet. maybe we will, but maybe actually they will also choose not to -- >> we haven't heard anything

from netanyahu since last weekend. >> there was a very, very brief tweet in the early hours of sunday morning, but beyond that, a few words on tv as he was sort of starting a cabinet meeting. but you would expect after the attack on saturday night i think for your leader to address the nation and say don't worry, you're safe, stay calm, this is what we're going to do. but nothing. netanyahu has not appeared on national tv in any meaningful way to reassure his nation. but just following this attack i wouldn't be surprised if the israelis choose not to make a big deal out of it, maybe not rub it in iran's faces. they sent a message and with a few missiles. >> a clear message. there was speculation throughout the week that the nuclear facilities was on the table. i spoke to an ex-mosad

intelligence director. and he said we sent them back to work but we're monitoring the situation. let's talk about iran's several nuclear facilities spread around the country. let's show the main ones. the bonab research center in the north. there's also fordow and the natanz nuclear plant. it was over the airspace of isfahan international airport where we understand these missiles or the iranians say it was drones they struck, their aid defenses kicked in. that's where we understand the strike was. >> and israel message is if we can land a couple missiles, military base missile, we can also land a couple of missiles

in a nuclear research facility as well, if we're pushed to do so. clearly there's messaging there as well. and it's a warning. i'm sure that over the last five days there would have been a lot of debate about whether israel should go further, whether they should attack the nuclear facilities. it was quite interesting yesterday. iran have always said they want nuclear capability for civilian energy purposes, that's it. they've always denied wanting a nuclear weapon. frankly, very few people believe them. but yesterday a senior general did say if israel attacks us we might be forced to change our doctrine, ichlte we might get a nuclear weapon anyways and accelerate the process. that was a clear threat. the use of nuclear language has been threatened by both sides. >> indeed. ali, we'll keep talking with you

throughout the program. to help our audiences where this has come from, where the events we saw overnight has come from, israel struck the iranian consulate in syria, several military advisers including three senior commanders were killed. israel has said it was a military compound, it wasn't a diplomatic compound. the iranians have said it was a diplomatic compound. then last weekend we saw iran fire 170 drones, 30 ballistic missiles. israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu vowed to respond and it seems we've seen that response overnight. for years you've covered iran's proxies in this region. but for the last six months really you've been in yemen. you've been talking to the

iraqis. you're currently in lebanon. there was this feeling no one wanted -- the leadership certainly in all these countries didn't want the situation to escalate. when you've spoken to hezbollah, they've made it clear they're ready if this needs escalation. that war of words has continued but not just war of words. there has been low scale war between israel and hezbollah for at least the last six months. >> i think the message that they've been giving out ever since the weekend drone and missile attacks by iran is two fold. one, they do not want war. that was very clearly replicated over and over again from a number of different avenues and sources, not just the lebanese government, not just the lebanese fighters on the ground and lebanese politicians who watch it but also across the region. no one wants war, and hezbollah being the strongest iranian

proxy for them to say that is a very good indication and a reflection perhaps of not just how they feel but perhaps the iranian authorities and the iranian militants over there -- the military over there. but also the second one is if there is a retaliation really what they would consider a wide scale, deep, powerful, strong retaliation from israel, then they were ready, and they would respond in kind. very chilling, powerful messages from the iranian leadership over the last few days if that were to happen, that their fingers were on the trigger, that they would respond and it would heard and they have the capability to do that. that again has been replicated by hezbollah here in lebanon, and they believe they are very much on the front line. there are as you point out daily multiple cross fire exchanges between the leb news hezbollah

on the south of the lebanese border with the israeli defense force on the north of their border. and it's not just multiple exchanges, multiple bombing attacks. they have inskreesed in intensity and depth how far they go into lebanon. so we are in an escalatory pattern, these no doubts. the weekend drone and missile attacks just ratcheted up even more with much more intense cross fire exchanges on that border. so the potential for it to tip into a regional war, drawing in the yemeni houthis, the drawing in the iraqi and other militias in iraq swelgz those stationed in syria is immense. and they are all as one. they all belong under this umbrella group which they call the axis of resistance. and we've seen all this activity

not just from the houthis in yemen, for instance, international global trade through the red sea and gulf of adan but attacking american bases not so long ago from iraq and syria and killing soldiers. this does have the potential to escalate, and we're in a very dangerous situation and position right now. hezbollah the indications this morning overnight, having seen what's happened overnight there's a lot of down-playing not just for those in tehran but also here in lebanon with the hezbollah leadership making its initial statement pretty much disdainful of the attack. certainly the hezbollah leadership here pouring a lot of

cold-water on it, pretty much dismissing it as inconsequential, sharing in this initial statement according to them israel is afraid they don't have any clear plan, they're being dictated to by america. but underlying if they go further, if they hit harder, if they cross this invisible red line, which clearly the iranians and hezbollah and all their proxies are aware of, they will suffer the consequences. let's remember just how strong hezbollah has become over the past few years since 2006 when they managed to push the israeli army out of large parts of a seized area in lebanon. they have grown. they've grown in size. they've grown in power. they've accumulated an unknown

but larger arsenal of weaponry. right now they're banging the drone to say they're not only prepared to use it not only to defend lebanese borders but in loyalty to whatever happens in iran. the message we've been getting and a number of forministers saying you hit one, you hit us all. and that's a worrying prospect for the international community particularly israel and america and those seen very much in this part of the world to be aligned with israel. that includes britain and france and the countries who took part in the defense of that drone and cruise missile attack. the view here is very much israel started it, that they crossed this red line by attacking the consulate in damascus. they feel that was pretty much

similar and tantamount to attacking iran on diplomatic soil. the message is we believe israel started it so much influence he was saying but only so much. as far as israel is concerned we'll standby and shoulder to shoulder with hezbollah. at the moment it feels perhaps a line has been drawn under these overnight event. we'll get more detail throughout the day and over the next few days. obviously everyone is wait a minuting to see if that continues. but the suggestion seems to be this is probably an acceptable response as far as hezbollah and perhaps the iranians are

concerned. the potential for it still escalating obviously exists. the reason this has flared up most recently again is what's happened in gaza, because lebanon and all these countries are fighting on behalf of the palestinians and believe that the only solution is an official palestinian state. >> alex, thank you for all your reporting there. that's our alex crawford reporting and offering her analysis from beirut. as we've been saying we're expecting u.s. secretary of state antony blinken to speak from the g7 foreign ministers meeting. all week we've heard from global leaders, ministers, foreign ministers urging for restrantd. the u.k. government this morning urging both israel and iran to de-escalate the situation. let's just have a little listen. >> we do think the deescalation is absolutely key now, and our message to all in the region

including israel is deescalation is really important. the foreign secretary currently is in italy speaking with his g7 counter parts and they will be very much focused on exactly that. >> that was mel stride. let's get more now from our deborah hanes. whether it's been joe biden saying to israel take the win, but then we also saw lord cameron here as well to say just see it doesn't escalate, but we've seen the response overnight. >> it's interesting. there is no official confirmation, is there, from israel on exactly what has happened, what the scale of attack was on iran. we know it has happened with

iranian media reporting three drones being struck down. it would be really interesting and important i think to hear exactly what has happened in terms of this retaliatory strike, and whether as it seems that this is a limited course of action by israel. israel had a whole range of options it could have taken in response to iran's unprecedented military -- missile and drone strike at the weekend. and that ranged from launching f-35 jets to target nuclear sites inside iran down to more limited action maybe using drones. i think it would be very interesting to see what the target was and exactly what the munitions were we used. and then from that it would be a bit more effective to be able to draw a conclusion of as to how

iran might view the attack and view the response. and at the same time israel needs to show to its own people that it is restoring deterrence. that red line has now been crossed by iran of a direct attack against israel. and so israel will really be wanting to show all its enemies in the region that it is not a soft target and anyone who attacks israel can expect a powerful response. >> yeah. i mean when you speak to israeli officials they say you can't show weakness in this region, so they wanted to send a very clear message, but also this is a new sort of phase and a nigh precedence that has been set. >> the fact this is happening at a time when israel is already engaged in a significant war in gaza, it's also having

escalatory tensions and increasing contact with hezbollah across its northern border in lebanon. so dealing with two fronts already and then suddenly this third front, this direct confrontation let's just say it as it is from iran to israel, israel having to respond back, that's surely playing into calculations, too. israel has finite resources, and both sides have previously said, haven't they, they aren't seeking direct confrontation. a confrontation that would not just involve iran and israel but of course allies in the region, too. you've got british forces in cypress that were involved in that effort to successfully defend israel's territory from the attacks over the weekend. they would then potentially be sucked into any wider confrontation. so it really has been a balancing act of responding but responding in a way hopefully

that deescalates rather than trigger another round, a significant round of missiles and drones. and one final point the ability to deliver was only finite. there's only so many air defense missiles israel has. the becomes more dangerous and the increasing chance of greater casualties rises the longer this continues. >> yeah, absolutely. debra, thank you so much for all of that. let's go straight to sky news' military analyst sean bell who joins us now. we're still trying to ascertain to figure out exactly what happened overnight iranian state media more or less tried to down-play nings from the out set. not sure we'll fully understand what was used, but what's your

analysis on what happened overnight? >> as you quite credibly said i think we've got to be careful not to speculate too much at this stage. israel is not saying much. iran sounds like it wants to down-play after this. i think after the attack last week we've sat on our seat wondering what israel would do, do nothing. but that was something that couldn't play well domestically for netanyahu. the other end of the spectrum was armageddon action, 330 missile match in some way, that would definitely escalate in the region. and there was a hope somehow there'd be a sweet spot in between. and i think there's a sense of relief this morning what appears to have happened is there appears to have been very surgical strikes done. it doesn't appear so far as if there's any reports of casualties. despite the attacks, the iranians are already saying there's no plans to react. i think we've got to be quite carefully some of the imagery we

see because it's quite clear the iranian air defenses were very nervous last night. almost certainly they would have been firing at shadows overnight, so we've got to be quite careful about that. the fallout is interesting. one iran saying we have no plan to escalate. and israel i think they used the word feeble on social media. that demonstrates it's probably not enough to appease some but small enough not to escalate. there's probably three things israel should be able to walk away from this. one of which they sort of had the last word, which is important for netanyahu. secondly, they struck at not only storage sites of missiles but struck at a nuclear site and also thirdly and importantly israel demonstrated it can target effectively on iranian soil when iran was not able to do so very effectively despite this huge barrage of missiles. so i think if we are going to

see the dust settle, this might be an elegant end to the story, but it's also worth pointing out is probably the timing. it's no surprise this attack happened today. >> sean, thank you as always for all of that. well, as we've been reporting here from jerusalem and watching the developments in the early hours of the morning, israel launch an attack on iran, we've heard in the last couple of hours iranian officials telling reuters news agency they have no intention of responding immediately, and that they have no confirmation as to who exactly it was. we're also waiting to hear from the u.s. secretary of state, antony blinken, who's at the g7 foreign ministers summit. and he is going to be giving a briefing. all week we've heard the israeli war cabinet, israeli officials and leaders say they had to respond in some way, that they

were planning on retaliating because of iran's on attack on israel, that certain red lines had been crossed. professor, thank you very much for joining us. israel wanted to send iran a very clear message. has that message now been received? >> they haven't done anything. there were three helicopters near isfahan that were down. there were no explosions. in no city have we had explosions. the only thing that woke me up this morning was an international reporter that called me asking what's happening, and i haven't been able to go back to sleep. so, no, we haven't seen anything in particular happen. tehran, which i'm in, the capital, is very quiet.

and i've spoken to people in isfahan, colleagues who also say they haven't heard anything. just one thing, though, and now there's that -- >> professor, just to respond what you just said there, that nothing has actually happened, there does seem to be mixed messaging from the iranian side. iranian state media said there were drones, the defense system kicked in and targeted them. others are saying absolutely nothing has gone on, and we've had iranian officials tell reuters news agency they don't plan on responding in any way immediately. is iran sending mixed messages? are they on high alert given the attack on israel last weekend? >> well, two things. i'm sure no iranian official has said anything to reuters. reuters has a history of inaccurate statements when it comes to iranian officials. i know personally because i was

involved during the nuclear negotiations. so that aside, what happened this whole story began with israelis bombing the iranian embassy. then the iranians responded. and as you know, most of the drones that the iranians sent were inexpensive drone. they were to distract attention from air defenses, and the iranians fired effectively at a handful of missiles that hit their targets both in the south and the north. so it was a limited strike -- >> what we saw was 300 ballistic cruise missiles, drones in total. was iran surprised by what western leaders and israel had described as iran's failure last weekend to make any impact despite the barrage of drones and missiles it sent israel's way? >> no, iran was highly successful. those drones that iran fired,

200, were dirt cheap drones. and the israelis spent 1.35 -- >> it didn't penetrate anything, it didn't do any sort of damage. the only damage it did was at a military base, and actually an arab muslim girl who's seriously injured in hospital. >> if you could allow me to explain, you'll see the israelis are misleading you. those drones were not intended to hit anything. those drones were a distraction. they were meant to draw fire, and that's exactly what they did, draw fire from israeli regime defenses. they were sent three, four, five hours earlier to get to israel. they gave the israeli as lot of time to prepare themselves to down them. but the objective was to distract them. it wasn't as if iran was firing 300 missiles. the missiles that the iranians fired that were intended to hit

the targets were between 10 and 20, and they hit their targets both an air base in the south and the -- >> not quite. i mean what was the point? i know you say the drones were a distraction, but what was the point if you then saw a coalition coming together of americans, britain, france, arab countries getting involved, jordan -- namely jordan in israel's defense? >> well, in fact, that increases the scope of the failure because these drones were downed by a huge number of very advanced missiles. so iran was able to gather intelligence about what the americans and israelis have, their radar systems, their missile defense capabilities. and they're also able to empty their stocks with a bunch of very old drones that iran had in stock. and also the missiles that iran fired were two types.

one were very old missiles that reach israel alongside the drones. these were all for intelligence gathering, all to make sure that israelis and americans fired upon them, and also a distraction so that the main missiles, which were as i said between 10 and 20 would strike their targets, and they both did. >> professor morandi, from one group it's been described as theatrics and iran just giving lots of warning that this was coming. on the other hand, there are others who say this displayed iran's weakness. unfortunately, we're trying to get to rishi sunak who's speaking live so we'll have to leave it there, but professor, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. well, in the next few minutes we are expecting to hear from the prime minister rishi sunak who will be speaking in central london.

as soon as that happens, we will be bringing that to you. but i'm going to bring in our ali who was listening to that interview and has been analyzing the events of the last few days. i mean we have heard iranian state media, iranian officials down-playing what happened. the professor saying nothing happened actually. i've called friends in isfahan, i'm here in tehran, absolutely nothing has happened. what exactly did they do? >> i think it's clear something happened. the united states were given full warning of it, and they have confirmed, u.s. officials confirmed to many outlets. they were always determined to carry one out. they targeted isfahan. we know that. if nothing did happen whatsoever, why are you there for so many state-related social media channels and media

personalities in iran talking about it and mocking it as being rather feeble. because something happened and they want to down-play it, that's why. it's not just rishi sunak due to speak immediately. ibbruham is due to speak as well. if that is what he decides to do, people will take a breath. >> just yesterday he was saying the tiniest invasion, the tiniest attack we are going to respond much harder than what israel saw last weekend. then we heard from -- i'm just being told rishi sunak has just arrived and about to give his

speech. let's listen in. >> today i'd like to talk about the growing number of people becoming inactive and the moral mission of reforming welfare to give everyone who can the best possible chance of returning to work. now, the values of our welfare state are timeless. they're part of our national character of who we are as a country. we're proud to ensure a safety net that is generous for those who genuinely need it and fair to the taxpayers who fund it. we know there are some with the most severe conditions who will never be able to work, and some who can no longer work because of injury or illness. and they and their loved ones must always have the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will always be supported. but we also have a long-standing and proudly british view that work as a source of dignity, purpose, of hope. the role of the welfare state should never be merely to provide financial support as important as that will always be

but to help people overcome whatever barriers they might face to living an independent, fulfilling life. everyone with the potential should be supported, and not just to earn but to contribute and belong. and we must never tolerate barriers that hold people back from making their contribution and from sharing in that sense of self-worth that comes from feeling part as something bigger than ourselves. and that is why this is moral mission and why the value of work is so central to my vision for welfare reform. and it's fitting to be setting out that vision here at the center for social justice. over your 20-year history, you've inspired far-reaching changes to welfare, and i want to pay tribute to you and of course your founder, my friend ian duncan smith, who began that journey of reform through 2010, a journey carried through ably

today. because when we arrived in office people coming off benefit could lose 9 pounds for every 10 they earned, by far the highest marginal tax rate, and that was morally wrong. so we created universal tax credit to make sure work always pays, we introduced the national living wage and increased it every year, end low pay in this country. we're rolling out 30 hours of free child care for every family over 9 months of age. and we've cut workers national insurance by a third, a 900 pound tax cut for someone earning the average wage because it is profoundly wrong income from work is taxed twice when other forms of income are not. for me it is a fundamental duty of government to make sure hardwork is always rewarded. i know and you know you don't get anything in life without hard work.

it's the only way to build a better life for ourselves and our family and the only way to build a more prosperous country, but in the period since the pandemic something has gone wrong. the proportion of people who were economically inactive in britain is still lower than our international peers and lower today than in any year under the last labor government, but since the pandemic 850,000 more people have joined this group due to long-term sickness. this has wiped out eight decades worth of progress in which the rate had fallen every single year. of those who are economically inactive, fully half say they have depression or anxiety. and most worrying of all the biggest increase due to long-term sickness came from young people. those in the prime of their

life, just starting out on work and family. instead parked on welfare. now, we should see it as a sign of progress of course that people can talk openly about mental health conditions in a way that years ago would have been unthinkable. and i will never dismiss or down-play the illnesses people have. anyone who's suffered mental ill health or have family or friends who have knows these conditions are real and they matter. that just as it would be wrong to dismiss this growing trend, so it would be wrong to sit back and nearly accept it because it's too hard, too controversial or for fear of causing offense. doing so would let down many of the people our welfare system was designed to help. because if you believe as i do that work gives you the chance not just to earn but to contribute, to belong, to overcome feelings of loneliness

and social isolation, and if you believe as i do the growing body of evidence that good work can actually improve mental and physical health, then it becomes clear, we need to be more ambitious about helping people back to work. and more honest about the risk of overmedicalizing the every day challenges and worries of life. fail to address this, and we risk not only letting those people down but creating a deep sense of unfairness in those that fund our social safety net in a way that risks trust and consent in our very system. of course the situation as it is it is, and there's no way to achieve our goal in bringing down migration levels which are just too high without giving

more of our own people the skills and incentives and support to get off welfare and back into work. and we can't afford such a spiraling increase in the welfare bill and the irresponsible burden that we'll place on this and future generation of taxpayers. we now spend 69 billion pounds on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition. that's more than our entire school's budget, more than our transport budget, more than our policing budget. and spending on personal independence payments alone is forecast to increase by more than 50% over the next four years. let me just repeat that. if we do not change, it will increase by more than 50% in just four years. that's not right. it's not sustainable, and it's not fair on the taxpayers who fund it. so in the next parliament the

conservative government will significantly reform health care. this is not about making our safety net less generous or imposing a blanket freeze on all benefits as some have suggested. i'm not prepared to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable. instead the critical questions are about eligibility, about who the be entitled to support and what kind of support best matches their needs. and to answer these questions, i want to setout today five conservative reforms for a new welfare settlement for britain. first, we must be more ambitious in assessing people's potential for work. right now the gateway to ill health benefits is writing too many off, leaving them on the wrong type of support and with no expectation of trying to find a job with all the advantages that that brings. in 2011, 20% of those doing a

work capability assessment were deemed unfit to work. but the latest figure now stands at 65%. that's wrong. people are not three times sicker than they were a decade ago, and the world of work has changed dramatically. of course those with serious debilitating conditions should never be expected to work. but if you have a low level moment issue, your employer could make reasonable adjustments perhaps including adaptations to enable you to work from home. and if you're feeling anxious or depressed, then of course you should get the support and treatment you need to manage your condition. but that doesn't mean we should assume you can't engage in work. that's not going to help you. is it's not fair on anyone else either. so we're going to tighten up the work capability assessment such that hundreds of thousands of benefit recipients with lesser

conditions will now be expected to engage in the world of work and be supported to do so. second, just as we help move people from welfare into work, we've got to do more to stop people going from work to welfare. now, the whole point of replacing the sick note with the fit note was to stop so many people just being signed off as sick. instead of being told you're not fit for work, the fit note provided the option to say you may be fit for work with advice maybe you can do and what adaptions or support would enable you to stay in or return to work quickly. 11 million of these fit notes was issued last year alone. the work proportion was signed maybe fit for work, maybe 6%. that's right, a staggering 94% of those signed off sick was simply written off as not fit for work. well, that's not right. and it was never the

intention -- we don't just need to change the sick note, we need to change the sick note culture so that the default becomes what work you can do, not what you can't. building on the pilots that we already started, we're going to design a new system where people have easy and rapid access to specialize work and health support, to help them back to work from the very first conversation. and part of the problem is that it may not be reasonable to ask gps who were perfectly busy at the moment assess whether their own patients are fit for work. it too often puts them in an impossible situation where they know the refusal to sign somebody off. so we're also going to test shifting responsibility for assessment from gps and giving it to specialist health professionals who have dedicated time to provide an objective assessment of someone's ability to work and the support they

need to do so. third, for those who could work with the right support, we should have higher expectations of them in return for receiving benefits. because when the taxpayer is supporting you to get back on your feet, you have an obligation to put in the hours. and if you do not make that effort, you can't expect the same level of benefits. it used to be that if you worked just nine hours a week, you'd get full benefits without needing to look for additional work. that's not right. because if you can work more, you should. so we're changing the rules. anyone working less than half a full-time week will now have to try and find extra work in return for claiming benefits. and accelerate moving people from legacy benefits onto universal credit to give them more access to the world of work. now, one of my other big

concerns about the system is the longer you stay on welfare, the harder it can be to go back to work. around half a million people have been unemployed for six months, and well over a quarter of a million have been unemployed for 12 months. these are people with no medical conditions that prevent them from working and that will have benefitted from intensive employment support and training programs. there is no reason these people should not be in work especially when we have almost a million job vacancies. so we will now look at options to strengthen our regime. anyone who doesn't comply with the conditions set by their work coach, such as accepting an available job, will after 12 months have their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely because unemployment support should be a safety net, never a lifestyle choice.

fourth, we need to match the support people need to the actual conditions they have and help people live independently and remove the barriers they face. but we need to look again at how we do this through personal independence payments. i worry about it being misused. and its purpose is to contribute to the extra costs people face as they go about their daily lives. take, for example, those who need money for aid or assistance with things like hand rails or stair lifts. often they're already available at low cost for free, and they're one-off costs. so it probably isn't right we're paying an ongoing amount every year. we also need to look specifically at the way personal independence payments support those with mental health conditions. since 2019, the number of people claiming pip citing anxiety or depression as their main condition has doubled with over

5,000 new awards on average every single month. but for all the challenges they face, it's not clear they have the same degree of increased living costs as those with physical conditions, and the whole system is undermined by the way people are asked to make subjective and unverifiable claims about their capability. so in the coming days, we will publish a consultation on how we move away from that to a more objective and rigorous approach that focus on support on those with the greatest needs and extra costs. we will do that by being more precise about the conditions that should be eligible for pip. we'll consider linking that assessment more closely to a personal's condition and requiring greater medical evidence to substantiate a claim. all of which will make the system fairer and harder to exploit. and we'll also consider whether spl people with mental health

conditions should get pip in the same way through cash transfers or whether they'd actually be better supported to lead happier, healthier, and more independent lives through access to treatment like talking therapies or respite care. i want to be completely clear about what i'm saying here. this is not about making the welfare system less generous to people who face very real extra costs for mental health conditions. for those with the greatest needs we actually want to make it easier to access with fewer requirements. and beyond the welfare system, we're delivering the largest expansion in mental health services in a generation with almost 5 billion pounds of extra funding over the past five years and a near doubling of mental health training places. but our overall approach is about saying that people with less severe mental health conditions should be expected to engage in the world of work.

and fifth, we can't allow fraudsters to exploit the natural compassion of the british people. we've already cracked down on thousands of people wrongly claiming universal credit including those not self-reporting earnings or capital and will save the taxpayer 6 million pounds by legislating to access data from third parties like banks. just this month dwp secured guilty verdicts against the bulgarian gang caught making around 6,000 fraudulent claims including by hiding behind a corner shop in north london. and we're going further. we're using all the developments in modern technology including artificial intelligence to crack down on exploitation in the welfare system that's taking advantage of the hardworking taxpayers who fund it. we are preparing a new fraud bill for the next parliament which will align dwp with hmrc so that we treat benefit fraud

like tax fraud with new powers to make seizures and arrests and will also enable penalties to be applied to a wider set of fraudsters through a new civil penalty. because when people see people in their community gaming the system their taxes pay, it erodes support for the very principle of the welfare state. now, in conclusion, some people no doubt will hear this speech and accuse me of lacking compassion, of not understanding the bar yz people face in their every day lives. but the exact opposite is true. there is nothing compassionate about leaving a generation of young people to sit alone in the dark before a flickering screen watching as their dreams slip further from reach every passing day. and there's nothing fair about asking taxpayers to support those who could work but choose not to.

it doesn't have to be like this. we can change. we must change. the opportunities to work are there thank tuesday an economic plan that's created almost a million job vacancies. the rewards are there thanks to tax cuts. now if we can deliver the vision for welfare i setout for today, then we can finally fulfill our moral mission to restore hope and give back to everyone who can the dignity, purpose, and meaning that comes from work. thank you. >> thank you lots of time for questions from the media.

if i can start with itv. >> thank you, prime minister. on personal independence payments 1.9 million people with mental health issues are currently sitting on a waiting list. surely that's not the right moment to float replacing their benefits with access to treatment they'll be worried they can't get. and i'm sorry i do want to ask for a response on the israeli strikes on iran. >> thanks. we take mental health incredibly seriously, which is why we're investing record amounts into mental health services and treatment. if you look what's happened, funding for mental health services has actually exceeded the increase setout a few years ago so it went up 10% last year. treating a record number of adults and rolled out mental health support in communities and schools and world leading talking therapies has been given

extra funding and has a very successful recovery rate, and that's being expanded to more people, and we're preparing for the long-term as well. the recently announced, trains near doubling the number of mental health nurse training places are created through that. i think that should give you a sense of our commitment in supporting those with mental health conditions. there's a record amount going in and a plan to continually expand them. but i do think it's right to make sure our welfare system is supporting those who need it the most in the way we intended it to. and you just have to look at the numbers. over half of all the people who join that group of the economically inactive last year were fighting mental health or anxiety as the main reason. of course we want to get people the support and treatment they need with those conditions, but i do think it's right the

welfare system doesn't over medicalize the challenges of life especially because i believe in the evidence of support and we saw a range of different studies actually people being in work see huge improvements in overall health and especially mental health so we're letting those people down if we persist with a system which at the moment is writing far too many of them off when we know work will be very good for them. and you've seen this massive increase since the pandemic. most weringly for all of us amongst young people, and that can't be right. that's an enormous loss of potential, and we don't want to lose all those peoples potential. we want to support them so they can have as i describe the purpose, the meaning, the hope that comes from good work. and that's why i think it is right to look again how the work capability assessment works, and that's why we're going to tighten up the conditions there but also help pips support those

with mental health conditions and those people with less severe conditions do get the treatment they need and the right way to do that might not be through cash transfers, and might not be the case that the system as it is setup today in the way it treats people with this one size fits all model is actually doing the right thing. there's a range of conditions and severities people have and the impact on their daily living costs, and we need to be a bit more specific about that and actually ask ourselves, well, hang on is everyone seeing that extra cost in their day to day in the same way particularly when it comes to mental health conditions. the numbers speak for themselves. if we don't do anything the pip bill alone is forecast to increase in just four years. i don't think anyone who sits here that is sustainable, right, or fair. and it's the right thing to do to try and tackle this in the

way i've setout. and with the situation overnight as you would appreciate, it's a developing situation. it wouldn't be right to speculate until the facts become clear, and we're working to confirm the detales with allies. we have condemned iran's reckless and dangerous barrage on saturday, and israel absolutely has the right to self-defense. but as i've said to prime minister netanyahu when i spoke to him last week and more generally, significant escalation is not in anyone's interest, what we want to see is calm heads prevail across the region. next we go to lbc. >> thank you very much, prime minister. i just want to ask job center staff have already reported across the country unsustainable work loads and huge backlogs. under this plan they're going to have 400,000 more people to support into work. that is a lot of people. are you confident they're going to be able to manage that, and i

have to ask as well and it's right and suspended from his position whilst the investigations into those continue. and he's no longer a conservative mp as i said. with regard to work coaches, they do a fantastic job, actually. and they deserve an enormous amount of praise for what they do because they're doing something actually incredible. i mean they are transforming peoples lives. moving someone off welfare into work is an incredibly special moment. and any of us who have worked with them or heard about their stories and talked with constituents, colleagues. good morning and welcome to "way too early" on this friday, april 19th. i'm ali vitali in for jonathan

lemire. we begin this morning with breaking news out of the middle east. israel has carried out a limited strike against iran, that's according to person familiar with the situation who tells nbc news officials are now assessing the damage caused. the attack was carried out overnight. iranian state media reports explosions were heard in two cities. one of them was near the site of the country's largest nuclear research complex. but the international atomic energy agency confirms there's been no damage to any nuclear facilities. "the new york times" reports three iranian officials believe the attack was carried out by small drones, possibly launched from inside the country. the officials say the strike hit a military air base, and another group of drones were reportedly shot down. a source familiar with the situation tells nbc news the u.s. was not involved in the strike. defense secretary lloyd austin had spoken with his israeli counterpart yesterday afternoon, but it's not known if he was told about israel's plan to attack iiran. israeli officials have not yet commented on the strike, but the

move comes less than a week after iran launched 300 missiles and drones towards israel. that was done in retaliation for a deadly strike earlier this month and iran's attack, however, was mostly thwarted with help from u.s. and several arab and western allies. yesterday before israel's attack iran's foreign affairs minister reiterated her warning. it's not clear what the country will do, but the u.s. embassy in jerusalem has issued a security alert asking their employees and families to restrict their travel out of an abundance of caution. joining us live from tel aviv is nbc news correspondent raf sanchez. what more can you tell us, and are you hearing anything from israeli officials on this? >> well, ali, for nearly a week now the world has been waiting to see how israel would respond to that massive barrage of

israeli drones and missiles. israel carried out a limited strike near the city of isfahan, that's south of tehran. they're saying at this point israel is assessing the effectiveness and damage of this strike. israel is not officially claiming responsibility. it is a no comment at this point from the israeli defense forces. and it is not clear right now whether israel carried out this strike using jet aircraft, using long-range missiles, or as "the new york times" was possibly reporting, drones potentially launched from inside of iran itself that may become clearer as the hours unfold. u.s. officials saying the united states was not involved in this strike. there appears to have been some kind of general heads up that israel's response was coming, and that is really important, ali, because it gave american forces across the middle east time to make sure that their own

air defenses were ready because american troops could be a potential target if iran was going to retaliate. now, ali, almost as important as the strike itself is what both israel and iran are saying about it. at this point, it is really noticeable. the iranians appear to be down-playing what happened in the early hours of this morning. the iranian military saying the explosions people heard were the sounds of explosions going off. they're saying there was no major or significant damage inside iran. and state media is actually being kind of mocking. there's one meme going around on iranian channels basically showing a small hole in the dirt, a laughably small hole, a couple of inches. and they're saying, look, this was israel's response. so that is telling the iranians