the battle in parliament between the lords and the commons isn't over — who or what is preventing the rwanda bill from becoming law? peers in the house of lords refuse to back down over two of their amendments. one of their concerns — how can the government's bill essentially deem rwanda safe forever? nick's here, and so is a conservative mp. also tonight, new research seen by newsnight suggests the problem of working age people who say they can't work because of sickness is going to get a whole lot worse. we'll talk live to labour's shadow work and pensions minister. what's her solution? and while world attention�*s still on israel as we wait to find out how it will respond to iran,

what about that other war? what if ukraine loses to russia? we'll ask a combat medic for her thoughts as she prepares to go back to the front line. good evening. every conservative prime minister since 2010 has pledged to to cut migration — both legal and illegal — and yet, after 1a years in power, the party is still trying to make good on its promises. two years ago, borisjohnson announced the government planned to send asylums seekers who crossed the channel on boats to rwanda. so it introduced the nationality and borders act. it didn't work. then it tried with the illegal migration act. that didn't work either. tonight, rishi sunak�*s safety of rwanda bill is still not yet quite on the verge of becoming law because the house of lords is refusing to back down on two amendments. nick's here. we're heading for round four of pin pong — four of ping pong — where where are we tonight?

we are in a lengthy session of parliamentary ping—pong, that is the process when the two houses of parliament cannot agree, so the legislation passes to and fro. to keep the analogy going, we have got two balls in play. the first one is the house of lords saying, we want to exempt afghan veterans. the second one is to allow a monitoring body established by the government to rule in future whether rwanda is a safe country. supporters of that amendment see that currently under the bill, if it passes, rwanda would be deemed by parliament to be safe in perpetuity. so, why is this continuing? essentially because labour peers are supporting these two amendments. if they stop supporting them, they would fall. labour saying they are being constructive, they have withdrawn two amendments, but the one in particular they are supporting is the one on those afghan veterans. that is being put forward by des

browne, the former labour defence secretary. the government is saying, we have got the strong impression in the house of lords from ministers last night that they quite like this and they would move in our direction. that didn't happen, so labour think there is a chink of light so let's keep going on this one. but they are saying, look, we are not blocking this bill because they say the government could put it through if they wanted to. the house of commons, and the government's decision, rose at 7—17 tonight. labour said if they were in government, they would have kept that going until midnight. there is no way peers would have hung around until midnight so they would have won. the second thing those labour sources are pointed to as they have spotted 13 mysterious conservative peers who have been putting with the government, who they have spotted on the parliamentary estate and haven't been voting. they think one very simple thing is going on, they think the government is trying to buy time

because they are not ready for these flights. earlier, icaught because they are not ready for these flights. earlier, i caught up with the minister steve baker and said, what about this idea that you are trying to buy time? i don't accept that. the reality is that legislation usually takes months to put through. i have put through plenty of bills myself, and i'm well aware that at this stage in legislation, when you are in ping—pong between the two houses, things get tense, difficult, and you need to very carefully proceed. so, yeah, it is true ping—pong could have gone on through the night, but really we are going to be proceeding within days to come back to ping—pong. i think that's perfectly reasonable. but if this bill becomes law, the flights don't go the next day, do they? there will be a delay. well, the bill needs to become law, the treaty needs to be put in place, and michael tomlinson, who is the relevant minister, will set out our plans then to get the flights off the ground. but we are absolutely seized of the imperative to do this. it's a humanitarian cause to stop these flights. thank you very much, nick. thank you for that. we are going to get the

action that with conservative mp bob seely in just a moment. action that with conservative mp bob seely injust a moment. first, here isjoe pike on what might happen over the next few days and weeks. we've been hearing a lot about ping pong as this legislation has moved back and forth between the commons and lords. but if it passes, what will the scheme look like in practice, and when will flights take off? home office sources are keeping tight—lipped tonight. well, after the king gives royal assent, there'll likely be a delay for at least four to six weeks because there is a case—by—case appeals process. after being notified of removal, a person has seven days to appeal. the home office then has three days to respond. there's a six day appeal process, which, if it goes to an upper immigration tribunal, must be sorted within 22 days. if deportations are given the go—ahead, the people responsible for carrying them out are immigration enforcement staff. many have had their leave in the coming weeks cancelled. but one former chief inspector of borders and immigration has told us the home office doesn't have a great record on deportation and it's a difficultjob.

it can be very stressful for the people involved. very often when people are embedded in communities, even though they have been here a long time, it is sometimes very difficult to actually make arrests and make detention. and then, of course, they are also responsible for looking after immigration detention of state. —— after the immigration detention estate. and if you have ever been to an immigration detention centre, i can assure you they are not a very pleasant place. it's two years since this deportation flight to rwanda was blocked on the tarmac minutes before take off. that plane was chartered at an estimated cost of £500,000. more recently the home office has again been searching for options forflying migrants 4,000 miles to rwanda, with reports in the times today that raf voyager aircraft could be used. the rwandan government had planned

to initially house migrants travelling from the uk here in kigali's hope hostel. it's unclear if that's still the plan. but all arrivals will be guaranteed the right to reside, with the prospect of citizenship. even without a single person deported, this policy isn't cheap. by the end of last year, the uk government had already paid rwanda £2110 million. the total payment over the next five years, according to the national audit office, will be at least £370 million. although it is worth it, according to rishi sunak. he's claimed the scheme will, quote, "literally save us billions in the long run". the whole point of the safety of rwanda bill is to ensure judges and courts treat the country as a safe destination. but there still could be legal challenges. and it's possible a case is taken to the european court of human rights. and even if flights begin in the coming months, will it act as a deterrent? people crossing the channel in small boats were coming through other

irregular routes have already taken a lot of risks on theirjourneys. and especially if the risk of being sent to rwanda was relatively small, if we were talking about small numbers of people being sent there, it is very possible that they would just see this as one more risk at the end of an extremely riskyjourney. it is also often the case that asylum seekers don't go very much —— it is also often the case that asylum seekers don't know very much about the policies in the countries that they are going to. and of course, if they don't know, it is unlikely that they are going to be deterred by them. for now, the ping pong goes on, but the next big question for the government is when? will they try and get flights off the ground by the pm's initial spring deadline? or, as some in the shadow cabinet privately predict, wait until the autumn, just before a possible general election, so there's less time for things to potentially go wrong before we all head to the polls. in recent years, several ministers have visited rwanda, preparing the ground for this policy. but not a single migrant has made that trip. number 10 will be wishing, hoping and praying that changes. and soon.

let's get reaction to all that with the conservative mp for isle of wight, bob seely. thank you for being with us on newsnight. the bill declares rwanda are safe. according to this crossbencher lord hope, the bill implies that rwanda is safe for ever. how can a law see rwanda is safe forever? if ever. how can a law see rwanda is safe forever?— ever. how can a law see rwanda is safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be safe, we safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be safe. we change _ safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be safe, we change the _ safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be safe, we change the law. _ safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be safe, we change the law. really? - safe forever? if rwanda ceases to be j safe, we change the law. really? for the moment. — safe, we change the law. really? for the moment, the _ safe, we change the law. really? for the moment, the one that _ safe, we change the law. really? for the moment, the one that is - safe, we change the law. really? for the moment, the one that is a - safe, we change the law. really? for the moment, the one that is a safe l the moment, the one that is a safe country. indeed, it is one of the safest countries in the developing world. if it is not, what i don't understand is we are told that it is unsafe, the un has rehoused 30,000 refugees in rwanda over the last decade. the supreme court knew that when it brought in itsjudgment declaring, based on un evidence, that rwanda wasn't safe. rwanda is a safe country because it has been resettling refugees for years. idietitian

resettling refugees for years. when has the government _ resettling refugees for years. when has the government said _ resettling refugees for years. when has the government said it - resettling refugees for years. when has the government said it would change the law if rwanda was deemed to be unsafe?— to be unsafe? because we have a common-sense _ to be unsafe? because we have a common-sense system _ to be unsafe? because we have a common-sense system of- to be unsafe? because we have a - common-sense system of government. common—sense system of government. has anyone ever said that? i am common-sense system of government. has anyone ever said that?— has anyone ever said that? i am sure i can find a — has anyone ever said that? i am sure i can find a few- _ has anyone ever said that? i am sure i can find a few. honestly, i - has anyone ever said that? i am sure i can find a few. honestly, i don't - i can find a few. honestly, i don't think they — i can find a few. honestly, i don't think they have. _ i can find a few. honestly, i don't think they have. and it _ i can find a few. honestly, i don't think they have. and it is - i can find a few. honestly, i don't think they have. and it is safe - i can find a few. honestly, i don't| think they have. and it is safe and has been for _ think they have. and it is safe and has been for years. _ think they have. and it is safe and has been for years. it has - think they have. and it is safe and has been for years. it has been i think they have. and it is safe and i has been for years. it has been very unsafe in the _ has been for years. it has been very unsafe in the past. _ has been for years. it has been very unsafe in the past. we _ has been for years. it has been very unsafe in the past. we have - has been for years. it has been very unsafe in the past. we have no - has been for years. it has been very| unsafe in the past. we have no idea, as lord hope points out, whether it will be safe in three years or five years or ten years. we will be safe in three years or five years or ten years.— will be safe in three years or five years or ten years. we would take a decision at that _ years or ten years. we would take a decision at that time. _ years or ten years. we would take a decision at that time. why - years or ten years. we would take a decision at that time. why not - decision at that time. why not acce -t decision at that time. why not accept this _ decision at that time. why not accept this amendment - decision at that time. why not accept this amendment where j decision at that time. why not - accept this amendment where the independent monitoring organisation, which will be on the ground, could actually say, it is now safe, let's crack on and send flights? the comment _ crack on and send flights? tie: comment deemed these crack on and send flights? ti2 comment deemed these are moments that came back today, either they were unnecessary or designed to be ready. i think some of these amendments that we are seeing, as we know because they're being supported by the labour party, are being in bad faith. ., ., ,

by the labour party, are being in bad faith. ., .,, , ., bad faith. lord hope is a crossbencher. _ bad faith. lord hope is a crossbencher. to - bad faith. lord hope is a | crossbencher. to provide bad faith. lord hope is a - crossbencher. to provide locals in order to kansas _ crossbencher. to provide locals in order to kansas in _ crossbencher. to provide locals in order to kansas in the _ crossbencher. to provide locals in order to kansas in the courts - crossbencher. to provide locals in order to kansas in the courts or. crossbencher. to provide locals inj order to kansas in the courts or at a later date. we need to this built... you said nothing had been working, compared to a lot of european countries, we are getting illegal migration down. it is down 30%. i illegal migration down. it is down 3096. ., ., ., , 3096. i did not say nothing had been workin: , i 30%. i did not say nothing had been working. i set— 3096. i did not say nothing had been working, i set every _ 3096. i did not say nothing had been working, i set every conservative i working, i set every conservative prime minister since 2010 had promised to bring down legal and illegal migration. tens of thousands, dave callinan said. those pledges have not yet been met. —— david cameron said. this is the third piece of legislation in this parliament to try to stop the boats. we are bringing down illegal migration, we haven't yet got it down to zero. it is up 80—100% in other countries. we have got it down in this country. hopefully when we get this bill through, we will get it down more. in get this bill through, we will get it down more.— it down more. in the future, if rwanda becomes _ it down more. in the future, if rwanda becomes unsafe, - it down more. in the future, if rwanda becomes unsafe, the | rwanda becomes unsafe, the government, you are saying, will change the law to stop people being sent to an unsafe country? it just

sent to an unsafe country? it 'ust seems to be fl sent to an unsafe country? it 'ust seems to be so i sent to an unsafe country? it 'ust seems to be so basic i sent to an unsafe country? itjust seems to be so basic common i sent to an unsafe country? itjust i seems to be so basic common sense. people trust the government, then yes, common—sense, but some people don't trust the government, whether it is conservative or whoever wins the next election, they were likely to be in law so they know where they stand. let me ask you the other amendment where the large and backing down. they want an exemption for those who have worked with the uk military or government, for example, afghan interpreters, to be exempted. you were in afghanistan for a period, you are part of the military intelligence corps. how can you not support that amendment? i don't support that amendment because we have an afghan resettlement programme, firstly. secondly... some eo - le, programme, firstly. secondly... some --eole, as programme, firstly. secondly... some peeple. as you — programme, firstly. secondly... some people. as you well— programme, firstly. secondly... some people, as you well know, _ programme, firstly. secondly... some people, as you well know, have i programme, firstly. secondly... some people, as you well know, have not been able to get on that resettlement programme. the resettlement _ resettlement programme. ti2 resettlement programme. ti2 resettlement programme isn't perfect, but we have taken 25,000 under the resettlement programme. ii under the resettlement programme. if an afghan interpreter came on the boat of the channel, you think it is

fine to send them to rwanda even though they help the uk military forces. , , , ., though they help the uk military forces. , , i. _, forces. firstly, if you come here illeuall , forces. firstly, if you come here illegally. if _ forces. firstly, if you come here illegally. if we _ forces. firstly, if you come here illegally, if we start _ forces. firstly, if you come here illegally, if we start making i illegally, if we start making leupolz, we are creating a draw factor. it leupolz, we are creating a draw factor. , ., , ., ., factor. it is one exemption. how many afghan — factor. it is one exemption. how many afghan interpreters i factor. it is one exemption. how many afghan interpreters are i factor. it is one exemption. how- many afghan interpreters are there? if that becomes an exemption, there will be thousands. everybody from that part of the world and neighbouring states will come here and say, i sat with the british forces. ~ ., ~ ., , ., forces. we would know if they did or not. back forces. we would know if they did or not- itack in — forces. we would know if they did or not. back in 2011, _ forces. we would know if they did or not. back in 2011, | _ forces. we would know if they did or not. back in 2011, i was _ forces. we would know if they did or not. back in 2011, iwas injured... i not. back in 2011, iwas in'ured... you knew— not. back in 2011, iwas in'ured... you know what i not. back in 2011, iwas in'ured... you know what they i not. back in 2011, iwas in'ured... you know what they did i not. back in 2011, iwas injured... you know what they did for i not. back in 2011, iwas injured... you know what they did for the i you know what they did for the british armed forces. i you know what they did for the british armed forces.- you know what they did for the british armed forces. i also know that if you — british armed forces. i also know that if you come _ british armed forces. i also know that if you come here _ british armed forces. i also know that if you come here illegally i that if you come here illegally and we see there are leupolz, you create a draw factor. and we have a system in place which is working, imperfectly, because we know... imperfectly. we imperfectly, because we know... imperfectly-— imperfectly, because we know... imerfectl. ., ., ., , ., imperfectly. we have already taken a 25,000 people _ imperfectly. we have already taken a 25,000 people in _ imperfectly. we have already taken a 25,000 people in from _ imperfectly. we have already taken a 25,000 people in from afghanistan l 25,000 people in from afghanistan who have served with us. and there is a review, if i remember correctly, for afghan special forces who did a greatjob working with us. and if that finds that we need to be

changing our role is to make sure that we are getting more afghan special forces through, then we will do that. that review is under way at the moment. do that. that review is under way at the moment-— the moment. last week rishi sunak insisted that — the moment. last week rishi sunak insisted that flights _ the moment. last week rishi sunak insisted that flights will _ the moment. last week rishi sunak insisted that flights will take - the moment. last week rishi sunak insisted that flights will take off i insisted that flights will take off by the spring, but he did not name a specific date. on sunday, the health secretary said flights would go within weeks. the chief secretary to the treasury said this morning flights would go in the spring, but that there were, quote, lots of definitions of spring. what is your definitions of spring. what is your definition of spring? i definitions of spring. what is your definition of spring?— definition of spring? i can't remember _ definition of spring? i can't remember when _ definition of spring? i can't remember when spring i definition of spring? i can't i remember when spring ends, is it june one? these flights are going to take off. june one? these flights are going to take off. ~ i june one? these flights are going to take off-- i am _ june one? these flights are going to take off.- i am presuming i june one? these flights are going to | take off.- i am presuming late take off. when? i am presuming late s-urin , take off. when? i am presuming late spring. early — take off. when? i am presuming late spring, early summer. _ take off. when? i am presuming late spring, early summer. will— take off. when? i am presuming late spring, early summer. will that i take off. when? i am presuming late spring, early summer. will that stop| spring, early summer. will that stop the boats? i — spring, early summer. will that stop the boats? i really— spring, early summer. will that stop the boats? i really hope _ spring, early summer. will that stop the boats? i really hope it _ spring, early summer. will that stop the boats? i really hope it does. i the boats? i really hope it does. this is one _ the boats? i really hope it does. this is one of _ the boats? i really hope it does. this is one of a _ the boats? i really hope it does. this is one of a series _ the boats? i really hope it does. this is one of a series of- the boats? i really hope it does. this is one of a series of things l this is one of a series of things that we are doing. if it does stop the boats, it will be worth every penny. it. the boats, it will be worth every enn . �* the boats, it will be worth every enn _ �* the boats, it will be worth every enn . ~ ., the boats, it will be worth every enn. ~ ., penny. it. all the boats? that was the promise- _ penny. it. all the boats? that was the promise. there _

penny. it. all the boats? that was the promise. there is no - penny. it. all the boats? that wasl the promise. there is no guarantee that it. the promise. there is no guarantee that it- the — the promise. there is no guarantee that it. the boats, _ the promise. there is no guarantee that it. the boats, but _ the promise. there is no guarantee that it. the boats, but it _ the promise. there is no guarantee that it. the boats, but it will- that it. the boats, but it will stop the majority. that it. the boats, but it will stop the majority-— the majority. that was not the romise the majority. that was not the promise from _ the majority. that was not the promise from the _ the majority. that was not the promise from the prime i the majority. that was not the i promise from the prime minister. do not say he would stop the majority of the boats. not say he would stop the ma'ority of the mani not say he would stop the ma'ority of the heatefi of the boats. people can 'udge whether we fl of the boats. people can 'udge whether we have i of the boats. people can judge whether we have managed i of the boats. people can judge whether we have managed to l of the boats. people can judge i whether we have managed to stop of the boats. people can judge - whether we have managed to stop most of the boats coming through by the autumn weather, the labour party that has voted against us 100 times, right now it is clear they do not support this. went back to 100 times? they have voted against immigration measures over 100 times. you have had a majority of 80 odd since 2019. that is not by the acts have not worked. thank you very much. , ., ., ~ have not worked. thank you very i much.— thank you much. they are working. thank you very much — much. they are working. thank you very much for— much. they are working. thank you very much for being _ much. they are working. thank you very much for being with _ much. they are working. thank you very much for being with us. - much. they are working. thank you very much for being with us. bob i very much for being with us. bob sealey, conservative mp for isle of wight. since the pandemic, inactivity among uk people of working age due to long—term sickness has soared, pushing up the benefits bill and holding back the wider economy. new figures this week showed another rise. that has all prompted a major back to work push from the government.

but new research from the health foundation seen by newsnight suggests the inactivity crisis is set to get a lot worse over the coming years, not better. the think tank is projecting a rise of a further 700,000 working age people in england living with illnesses like diabetes, depression and heart problems by 20110. and 80% of that increase is expected to be in the poorest half of the population. what policies can prevent this dire scenario transpiring? in a moment, we'll talk to the acting shadow work and pensions secretary alison mcgovern. first, here's ben. my health caught up with me. it was that and it was nothing else. it was the worst thing in the world for me to stop working. i hated it. i still hate it. it's mainly my autism, and my anxiety that comes around with the autism, as well. they are the main reason that i qualify for the benefits that i do.

two faces of economic inactivity in 20211. but will there be many more in the decades to come? since the covid pandemic began in early 2020, inactivity among working age people — that's those aged between 16 and 611 — has risen by around 770,000. and the biggest driver of that rise in inactivity has, by far, been the rise in long—term sickness, which is up by 666,000. that marked rise in sickness—related inactivity has been a break on the economy and prompted the creation of a major back to work programme for ministers. but if ministers were hoping for a rapid turnaround, here is a reality check. the health foundation think tank projects that the number of working age adults suffering from major illness, with diabetes, depression, chronic pain, or heart problems, is actually set to rise significantly over the coming decades. in fact, by an extra

700,000 by 20110. fran springfield, a nurse for decades, was forced to give up work while she was in her 50s due to back problems which left her needing to use a wheelchair. the sadness of it all has been is that there is no real way that i could go back and work part—time. i only know one other nurse in the uk who is a wheelchair user and still works. and troublingly, new research from the foundation, seen by newsnight, suggests 80% of that 700,000 projected increase in working age people suffering from major illness is expected to be among the least well off half of the english population, shown on the left. a lot of people who live in more deprived areas actually, you know, as we saw in the pandemic, many of them are key workers, many of the people that are absolutely vital to keeping our economy going, so we can't kind of discount a whole segment of the workforce simply because they are poor. i used to enjoy it. since...

for as long as i can remember. i always know when my mental health is going downhill when i stopped doing my art. charlotte, a 26—year—old single mother, is economically inactive because of her mental health problems, including anxiety from borderline personality disorder. i think if someone is struggling financially, erm... and i know this is an extreme example, but if someone is struggling to feed themselves and their child at the same time, then that is going to cause you a massive amount of depression and anxiety. between 2019 and 20110, among the most deprived areas, the health foundation projects more than 270,000 additional people living with chronic pain, 240,000 more people with type two diabetes, and just under 200,000 additional people with anxiety and depression. though there is also a fall of 311,000 in the numbers suffering from coronary heart disease. that projected fall in coronary heart disease is a welcome consequence of the decline in smoking rates in recent decades, something that of course has been encouraged by public policy.

so, public policy can influence public health. these dire projections are not set in stone, so what policies can change that picture for the better? the government and its work and pensions secretary mel stride has a stick—and—carrot approach to rising working age inactivity in its back to work plan. more work coaches and health support, but also greater sanctions on those who don't take up jobs. we are saying that if you have had intensive support from dwp for a period of 18 months, and you are fit and able to work, and there is a job that you can accept but you choose not to, after 18 months of support we will remove people's benefits. but the health foundation argues addressing more structural factors is essential. we need to be looking at how we address poverty and how that is affecting people's lives. they need to be looking at how they regulate some aspects

of the food and drink industry that drives obesity. and they need to be looking at things like poor quality housing. so these are sort of really foundational things to ensure people can stay healthy. and if we are not getting those right, then, you know, these are the problems that flow from that. i need more mental health support. so, what sort of mental health support are you getting at the moment? i have appointments with a mental health nurse, but i have only had one so far. i've not had any other support for a long time. so that's one in the last year or over what period? it will be the past couple of years. in an ideal world, i would be able to see somebody potentially once a week. and how likely is it, do you think, you might be in employment in the coming years? i actually want to be a hospice nurse. i know it sounds cliche, but i want to give back, really give back and take care of people, do something meaningful and rewarding. i think it would improve my quality of life, as well as perhaps earning

more money, more earning potential, and i want to set a good example to my son, as well. and fran, even at 69, would still also like to return to work in the nhs part—time, training nurses on how to care for the disabled. i would love to be on a ward speaking to nurses because it's the practical side of this for the nurses is so important. and you learn by doing. we need to look at an economy which prioritises people who can only work part—time. because there are so many of us that get shoved out of the jobs market when we don't want to. there are so many of us that, if they had imagination, they could find us something to do, something where we could give back and contribute. not being able to do that, for me, is horrible. the policy challenge when it comes to an activity is two—fold: to stop

people getting into it, but also to help people out of it. alison mcgovern is labour's acting shadow working and pensions secretary. thank you for being with us. let me ask you about charlotte who was in the film. she says she can't work because of autism, anxiety and borderline personality disorder. straightforward question. if you are in the next election would you make her look? i in the next election would you make her look? ., , her look? i think the first thing we have to do — her look? i think the first thing we have to do is _ her look? i think the first thing we have to do is get _ her look? i think the first thing we have to do is get in _ her look? i think the first thing we have to do is get in place - her look? i think the first thing we have to do is get in place or- her look? i think the first thing we have to do is get in place or plan l have to do is get in place or plan to improve the nhs. we have earmarked resources from closing tax loopholes to get 8500 extra mental health support workers to help people like charlotte, who need more mental health care and support and i think there has to be a deal. of course has to be rules and social security and i think as we heard so eloquently from both people in that

film, people with disabilities want to work. the issue is the lack of real support out there for people and i think the next labour government can change that and we can get help to the women we heard from this evening. 50 can get help to the women we heard from this evening.— can get help to the women we heard from this evening. so would you make charlotte look — from this evening. so would you make charlotte look for— from this evening. so would you make charlotte look for work? _ from this evening. so would you make charlotte look for work? as i - from this evening. so would you make charlotte look for work? as i said i i charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have _ charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have to _ charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have to get _ charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have to get her— charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have to get her the i charlotte look for work? as i said i think we have to get her the help i think we have to get her the help and support. what mel stride spoke about in the package, he said if people are fit and healthy they should work and i think that is right, that is not the problem we have got at the moment. it is about inactivity arising from ill—health. there will always be rules on social security system. what is going wrong at the moment is that nobody was to go to a job centre because the real helpers and there, so we would stick to those rules at the system but crucially put the real help and support in so that people can get a job. i absolutely don't believe those brilliant women in that video,

there isn't a job for them. they were brave enough to go on television and talk about their situation. i don't think it is beyond us as a nation to help them get a job. beyond us as a nation to help them tet a 'ob. �* , beyond us as a nation to help them teta'ob. �* , .,�* beyond us as a nation to help them tet a 'ob. �* , ., �* ., get a 'ob. and if they don't get a 'ob get a job. and if they don't get a 'ob are get a job. and if they don't get a job are there any _ get a job. and if they don't get a job are there any sticks - job are there any sticks under labour's plans? 265 job are there any sticks under labour's plans?— job are there any sticks under labour's plans? as i said a few times there — labour's plans? as i said a few times there are _ labour's plans? as i said a few times there are rules - labour's plans? as i said a few times there are rules in i labour's plans? as i said a few times there are rules in the i labour's plans? as i said a few- times there are rules in the system. if people completely disengage those conditions on social security, i think that is important, because it is a contributory system where people pay into it and the support thatis people pay into it and the support that is there is for when they need it. the problem we have at the moment is not the rules, it is the help and support people need which is why it is our nhs plan that will help get the support in on the hillside and also changing job centres so that we don't have this tick box culture any more give people real help. particularly... i

thought your mental health counsellors were for children and young people. counsellors were for children and young people-— counsellors were for children and young people. that is right but we will improve _ young people. that is right but we will improve the _ young people. that is right but we will improve the mental— young people. that is right but we will improve the mental health i will improve the mental health support that is available by building up that system. i would say on that particularly one of the things that is going wrong at the moment within social security is that there is not enough coordination and work between the health service and department for work and pensions and we will fix that but crucially there has to be an offer of real support for people and i don't think it is there at the moment. we have to put it in and thatis moment. we have to put it in and that is how we will make real the chance for people who have been out of work for a long time because they have been dealing with sickness or ill and help them get back into work, as we heard in the package, thatis work, as we heard in the package, that is what people want and we need to prioritise at.— to prioritise at. charlotte says she has had one _ to prioritise at. charlotte says she has had one appointment - to prioritise at. charlotte says she has had one appointment with i has had one appointment with the mental health support worker in two years. she said once a week would

really help her. your mental health counsellors are for children and young people, not people like charlotte he was 28 or fran who had to give up work. are you going to pay for mental health support workers to make sure people like... actually one of the failures ofjob centres at the moment is that if you need support, for example mental health support to get into work, there is a scheme called access to work that should be there to help support that without the moment there is a massive backlog for access to work applications and the support that should be there for people with disabilities to help them get into work and crucially stay there is simply failing. so by changing the culture ofjob centres i think we could get genuine help and support exactly to the kind of examples... and support exactly to the kind of examples- - -_ examples... forgive me for interrupting _ examples... forgive me for interrupting but _ examples... forgive me for interrupting but time i examples... forgive me for interrupting but time is - examples... forgive me for. interrupting but time is quite tight. if you change the culture of job centres that is one thing. they

need practical things like more mental health support workers, not for children and young people but for children and young people but for people of working age who are on working age benefits. their massive shortages in the workforce when it comes to mental services in the nhs and there are the bells of hamilton square in birkenhead at 11 o'clock! i haven't heard you say yes, we have got the money to pay for more mental health support workers across the nhs or adults who want to go back to work. got the money to pay for more mental health support workers across the nhs or adults who want to go back to work. we nhs or adults who want to go back to work. ~ ., ., ., ., , ., work. we have got more money for the nhs, 2 work. we have got more money for the nhs. 2 million — work. we have got more money for the nhs, 2 million more _ work. we have got more money for the nhs, 2 million more extra _ nhs, 2 million more extra appointments and i think we can help change and build our nhs which we need to do because at the moment it is on its knees as everybody knows and i think that support for our nhs will help but it has to go hand—in—hand with the big reform of job hand-in-hand with the big reform of job entree— hand-in-hand with the big reform of 'ob centres. ., ~ , ., , . ., , job centres. thank you very much, as the bells chime _ job centres. thank you very much, as the bells chime 11 _ job centres. thank you very much, as the bells chime 11 o'clock. _ joining me now to discuss this further is gp professor sir sam everington and director of the institute for

fiscal studies, pauljohnson. paul, i want you to lay out for our audience how big an issue this is. a long—term problem for whoever wins the next election, yes? it is long-term problem for whoever wins the next election, yes?— the next election, yes? it is big in several senses. _ the next election, yes? it is big in several senses. obviously - the next election, yes? it is big in several senses. obviously big - the next election, yes? it is big in several senses. obviously big in l several senses. obviously big in terms of the effect it has on people. it is big in terms of the scale of the increase over the last four or five years. there's scale of the increase over the last four orfive years. there's been literally a doubling in the number of people who are putting in claims for and of people who are putting in claims forand gaining of people who are putting in claims for and gaining access to disability and incapacity benefits over the last couple of years, which is astonishing. and it is big in terms of the costs. so, within a few years, we will be spending something like £80 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits, which is more than we spent on defence, just about the example we spend on schools, a bit more than we

spend on schools, a bit more than we spend on schools, just on benefits for people who have got some kind of long—term sickness. it is also, of course, big in terms of the impact on the labour market. this is a very big issue and one that has grown at an astonishing rate over the last couple of years. and it is expected to continue growing.— to continue growing. doctor etherington, _ to continue growing. doctor etherington, you _ to continue growing. doctor etherington, you must- to continue growing. doctorj etherington, you must have to continue growing. doctor- etherington, you must have seen many, many people with conditions that we have been talking about this evening. i want to ask you, could people do more for themselves or is thatjust people do more for themselves or is that just unrealistic and people do more for themselves or is thatjust unrealistic and incredibly hard—hearted of me to ask? the? that just unrealistic and incredibly hard-hearted of me to ask? they can devote more — hard-hearted of me to ask? they can devote more for _ hard-hearted of me to ask? they can devote more for themselves, - hard-hearted of me to ask? they can devote more for themselves, but - hard-hearted of me to ask? they can | devote more for themselves, but they need support to do it. what you certainly— need support to do it. what you certainly need in general practice is a much — certainly need in general practice is a much broader approach. the traditional— is a much broader approach. the traditional approach in medicine only deals with about 20% of people's_ only deals with about 20% of people's health and well—being. at our surgery, we have social prescribers. within that, they are 'obs prescribers. within that, they are jobs advisors, we run training

courses, _ jobs advisors, we run training courses, we have art studios where people _ courses, we have art studios where people can — courses, we have art studios where people can be creative, and we focus on people's— people can be creative, and we focus on people's environment. it is very much _ on people's environment. it is very much a _ on people's environment. it is very much a personalised service to individuals to see what can keep them _ individuals to see what can keep them in — individuals to see what can keep them in work. and keeping them in work_ them in work. and keeping them in work is _ them in work. and keeping them in work is absolutely essential. you know, _ work is absolutely essential. you know. we — work is absolutely essential. you know, we know with an 18—year—old, if you _ know, we know with an18—year—old, if you put— know, we know with an 18—year—old, if you put them in bed for ten days, they lose _ if you put them in bed for ten days, they lose 10% of their muscles. it is the _ they lose 10% of their muscles. it is the equivalent of an activity for ten years — is the equivalent of an activity for ten years. it is a disaster. i often describe — ten years. it is a disaster. i often describe when we give somebody a sick note, almost prescribing them to be _ sick note, almost prescribing them to be at— sick note, almost prescribing them to be at home and looking out for mac was— to be at home and looking out for mac was watching daytime tv. when you say— mac was watching daytime tv. when you say that two people, they realise — you say that two people, they realise what a serious impact they can have — realise what a serious impact they can have on — realise what a serious impact they can have on their mental health. right _ can have on their mental health. right from — can have on their mental health. right from the beginning, you have -ot right from the beginning, you have got to— right from the beginning, you have got to support them. i spent a long consultation is keeping people in work. _ consultation is keeping people in work, avoiding giving sick notes if possible — work, avoiding giving sick notes if possible. key to this also, we need a further— possible. key to this also, we need a further reform, like we did 15 years— a further reform, like we did 15 years ago. _ a further reform, like we did 15 years ago, of the sick note. it needs— years ago, of the sick note. it needs to _

years ago, of the sick note. it needs to be utterly focused on what people _ needs to be utterly focused on what people are — needs to be utterly focused on what people are capable of doing and not, you are _ people are capable of doing and not, you are either fit to work are not fit. you are either fit to work are not fit in _ you are either fit to work are not fit. , ., ., , , ., fit. in terms of the treasury, paul johnson, whoever _ fit. in terms of the treasury, paul johnson, whoever is _ fit. in terms of the treasury, paul johnson, whoever is running - fit. in terms of the treasury, paul johnson, whoever is running it - fit. in terms of the treasury, paul. johnson, whoever is running it after johnson, whoever is running it after the election, what are the issues for them? you have talked about how the benefits bill is higher than some departments, but what are the issues for them in terms of not only paying out when it comes to people in receipt of benefits for these conditions but also not getting the tax back because those people aren't working? tax back because those people aren't workin: ? , , ., , tax back because those people aren't workin? , ,., , ~ tax back because those people aren't workinu? , ,. , ~ ., working? this is a very... a whole series of big _ working? this is a very... a whole series of big issues _ working? this is a very... a whole series of big issues here. - working? this is a very... a whole series of big issues here. one - working? this is a very... a whole series of big issues here. one of. series of big issues here. one of the reasons, actually, that the government and it seems the opposition are planning some pretty serious cuts to most public services over the next several years as the scale of the increased expected spending on things like disability benefits. this is making a difference to all sorts of things. it makes a difference to the bank of england, as well, because this

reduces the effective labour force. i think what is really important, as well, is what you pointed out in the report, which is that this is something which particularly affects people with low levels of skills, low levels of education, people left behind in the labour market, which is telling us there is something more fundamental about the way we are running our education system, the way that people are able to make their own way through the labour market, which goes well beyond anything that you might see in the health service or the benefit system. that is a really big generational challenge. that is really interesting. _ generational challenge. that is really interesting. let - generational challenge. that is really interesting. let me - generational challenge. that is really interesting. let me put i generational challenge. that is i really interesting. let me put that back to doctor etherington. we work in what might be described as a deprived area. picking up on the wider issues of education and so on, do you see that. this wider issues of education and so on, do you see that-— do you see that. this whole thing needs to be _ do you see that. this whole thing needs to be sorted _ do you see that. this whole thing needs to be sorted at _ do you see that. this whole thing needs to be sorted at school - do you see that. this whole thing | needs to be sorted at school age. what _ needs to be sorted at school age. what do — needs to be sorted at school age. what do you mean by that? just

post-covid. _ what do you mean by that? just post-covid. we _ what do you mean by that? just post—covid, we have seen a 5% increase — post—covid, we have seen a 5% increase in _ post—covid, we have seen a 5% increase in significant mental health— increase in significant mental health problems in children, from 12-i7%~ _ health problems in children, from 12—17%. obesity now is a massive problem — 12—17%. obesity now is a massive problem. eitherway, obesity is malnutrition. and in hat with that was the _ malnutrition. and in hat with that was the fact that people are hardly eating _ was the fact that people are hardly eating any fruit and vegetables. we know that _ eating any fruit and vegetables. we know that one in four teenage girls are self— know that one in four teenage girls are self harming. what we are arguing— are self harming. what we are arguing for now is or should be a school— arguing for now is or should be a school nurse in every school that should _ school nurse in every school that should be — school nurse in every school that should be managing the social, physical— should be managing the social, physical and mental health of all chiidreh — physical and mental health of all children. and you should have them on the _ children. and you should have them on the governing board. the children i on the governing board. the children i serve _ on the governing board. the children i serve in _ on the governing board. the children i serve in my— on the governing board. the children i serve in my community, almost all of them _ i serve in my community, almost all of them who— i serve in my community, almost all of them who are not achieving educationally, it is a health problem. educationally, it is a health problem-— educationally, it is a health roblem. ., ~' , educationally, it is a health roblem. ., ,, , . problem. thank you both very much. thank you. — problem. thank you both very much. thank you, doctor _ problem. thank you both very much. thank you, doctor everington - problem. thank you both very much. thank you, doctor everington and i thank you, doctor everington and pauljohnson, thank you for your expertise and insight. why are the likes of the us, uk and france so ready to shoot down iranian drones headed for israel but unwilling to give ukraine the same help against russia?

that is a question posed by president zelensky this week as the world's gaze is fixed on events in the middle east while the fighting in ukraine rages on. today, a russian missile attack on the northern ukrainian city of chernihiv killed 17 people. at least 61, including children, were wounded. russia's intensified aerial attacks on ukrainian cities highlighted the growing shortage of sufficient air defense systems. the head of the pentagon's european command has warned that without more ammunition, ukraine might lose the war, amid reports the situation on the eastern front line has "significantly worsened". ukrainian poet and combat medic yaryna chornoguz is about to return to the front line after a short break spent with her daughter. i asked her how dangerous is the moment for ukraine now? the moment is dangerous, i can say

this, but i think it may be less dangerous than in 24th of february, 2022. because it was a time we were not ready at all. right now, our society and our army is awaiting the counteroffensive this summer. so everyone tries to be prepared. share everyone tries to be prepared. are ou everyone tries to be prepared. are you afraid? _ everyone tries to be prepared. are you afraid? ever? i— everyone tries to be prepared. are you afraid? ever? i wouldn't- everyone tries to be prepared. are you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say i everyone tries to be prepared. are| you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in — you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in this _ you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in this for _ you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in this for years, - you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in this for years, i - you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so because in this for years, i am - you afraid? ever? i wouldn't say so| because in this for years, i am used to the risk. i love thejob because in this for years, i am used to the risk. i love the job that i am doing, combat medicine. the mayor of kharkiv, which _ am doing, combat medicine. the mayor of kharkiv, which is _ am doing, combat medicine. the mayor of kharkiv, which is ukraine's _ of kharkiv, which is ukraine's second city, said to say that it is at risk of becoming a second aleppo.

as the mayor right? yes. at risk of becoming a second aleppo. as the mayor right?— as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. as the mayor right? yes. i think he is- because — as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. because kharkiv— as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. because kharkiv is— as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. because kharkiv is going - as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. because kharkiv is going to - as the mayor right? yes. i think he is. because kharkiv is going to be l as the mayor right? yes. i think he j is. because kharkiv is going to be a very important key city for the russian counteroffensive in the summer. they throw constantly bombs on the city and it has lots of destruction. i think it will become even worse closer to the summer. yaryna, what is your message to us congress right now who are expected to vote this weekend on the much delayed aid package for ukraine? mr; delayed aid package for ukraine? iji message delayed aid package for ukraine? m message is delayed aid package for ukraine? m1: message is that, delayed aid package for ukraine? m1 message is that, well, delayed aid package for ukraine? m1: message is that, well, we are grateful for your help, it really helped us very much, but we need more help, much more help, because

if ukraine didn't get all the help that we need, armoured vehicles, aerial defence systems, cannons from our allies, and the us, our big allies, if we didn't get it, our allies, if we didn't get it, our allies, sooner or later, would likely have boots on the ground. 50 likely have boots on the ground. so if you don't get the aid, what are you saying, yaryna? ii if you don't get the aid, what are you saying. yaryna?— if you don't get the aid, what are you saying, yaryna? if we do not get the aid sooner— you saying, yaryna? if we do not get the aid sooner or _ you saying, yaryna? if we do not get the aid sooner or later, _ you saying, yaryna? if we do not get the aid sooner or later, our- you saying, yaryna? if we do not get the aid sooner or later, our allies, i the aid sooner or later, our allies, western allies, is likely to send troops to europe to defend other countries from russia. if ukraine loses, russia will use our resource,

and we have huge resource on people and we have huge resource on people and vans and everything else, to invade other european countries. if ukraine loses, then russia may... are you suggesting russia may go into poland and latvia? {137i are you suggesting russia may go into poland and latvia? of course. first of all— into poland and latvia? of course. first of all to _ into poland and latvia? of course. first of all to baltic— into poland and latvia? of course. first of all to baltic countries - first of all to baltic countries because it is not a secret that in their propaganda, russian propaganda, they are constantly talking that they have or not with ukraine but with nato. so invading baltic countries while the us choose the president who is not likely to help ukraine, they will show that nato is weak. and some aid should be given in this case to these countries. what i want to see