live from london, this is bbc news. austria declares three days of mourning after ten people were killed in a shooting at a secondary school in graz. two israeli ministers have been sanctioned by the uk. israel's foreign affairs minister has called the decision outrageous. the us defence secretary faces questions on capitol hill. we will bring you that live. this is the scene in washington. ukraine, russia, nato or likely to dominate, as will pete hegseth's decision to send us marines to los angeles. the uk government confirms a multi-billion pound investment for a nuclear plant in suffolk which ministers say will deliver a golden age of clean energy. and uber is to start

trialling driverless taxis in london next spring, fully automated with no human behind the wheel. hello and welcome to today's verified life. let's start with a breaking of elements in austria, because austria has declared three days of national mourning after a mass shooting at a secondary school in the city of graz. the victims as six females and three males, 12 other people were also injured. the suspect, a 21-year-old austrian men is also dead. he is believed to have killed himself. graz is austria's second largest city and is located about 200 kilometres from the capital vienna. just in the last few minutes, a number of visuals, including the chancellor of austria has been giving the latest details to the media. here is a little

of what he's been saying. translation: my deepest condolences to the families, the parents who have lost a child today. my thoughts are with the siblings who now have to live without their brother or their sister. my compassion to those who have been injured and suffered unimaginable loss today. to the teachers, friends, staff in the school which have had to experience and witness this incredible heinous crime. as parents, as humans, as society in this country, we are all affected by this incident. a school is more than just a place to learn, it

is a space for trust, for feeling comfortable and for having a future. it is a safe space, it should be a safe space, and this safe space has been violated which makes us feel powerless. in moments like this, we have to show unity. that from the news conference just a short while ago. this goes straight to graz, our corresponding to is there. bethany, just about every single detail that we have been learning is absolutely horrific here. horrible, horrible details emerging over the last hour or so. we now know that the police suspect that the shooter was a 21-year-old former of the school which you can see just behind me there. it has now been cordoned off by police. he is understood not to have completed his studies at the school. the authorities say he was an austrian citizen, he

came from the area around graz. the police say they were alerted to an incident at the school at ten o'clock local time this morning, they were there very quickly and were able, within 17 minutes or so, to secure the area. they say the suspected shooter is understood to have killed himself in a bathroom. he is said to have had to guns which he used, both of which he owned legally. and, bethany, what else are the authorities saying about the many people who are also injured here? yes, many people injured and many being treated in local hospitals round here in graz. we know that there are nine people who have died, six of them female, three of them male. those of

the words of the officials here. and there have been distressing scenes, we understand, the school was evacuated very quickly. students were taken to a hall where they were given care and then they were taken to another place where they were reunited with their parents. and those who are in hospital are being treated at the moment. we understand there are people, some reports are unconfirmed at the moment, suggest a number of those who were injured had injuries to their legs. so the shutter appears to have shot them in the legs. bethany, it is a nightmare scenario for all of those parents rushing to the school to actually find out what has happened to their loved ones. there is all of that trauma to deal with, let alone those pupils who survived. what is the state of

play with austria's gun laws? this is by far the worse mass shooting in austria's recent history. there have been individual incidents of people shooting at schools since the 1990s, but nothing like the casualties that we are seeing in this particular case. and austria's gun laws are liberal compared to some european countries, and according to some estimates, around... the level of gun ownership here is quite high. we are told in this case the suspected shooter did own these two weapons legally, so a big many questions will be asked about the state of austria's gun laws. but certainly in recent years, austria has been spared the

kind of mass shootings that other european countries have seen. the worst incident in recent years was in 2020 when a known jihad list ran through vienna and in that case four people were killed. bethany in graz, thanks very much for the latest. do head to the bbc website, much more detail available there. a number of visuals giving that news conference in the last 60 minutes, a lot of new detail there on the bbc website. let's turn to the other breaking development in the last hour or so. the uk government is imposing sanctions on too far right israeli ministers about the comments on gazza. they will stop itamar ben-gvir and bezalel smotrich from entering the country and freeze any assets in the country. this's has described the move as outrageous. in the last few minutes we have heard from the

uk foreign secretary. these individuals, itamar ben-gvir and bezalel smotrich have been inciting violence against palestinian people for months and months and months. they have been encouraging egregious abuses of human rights. we have been raising this with the israeli government both privately and publicly. we were raising it before we came to government and indeed the last government raised it as an issue. and alongside our partners, canada, australia, new zealand and norway, today we are announcing sanctions against those individuals. because we have been absolutely clear. this has to stop, and we stand for a two state solution and the settler violence that we see in the west bank particularly is entirely unacceptable and must stop.

that was the uk foreign secretary, with me is our diplomatic correspondence. james, give me your assessment of the significance of this move, because this is a break for the uk with the us position, isn't it? yeah, as far as i can tell, i can't remember the last time a british government actually sanctioned a member of israel's government. obviously there have been a lot of uk sanctions before on settle is an individual israelis, but it is definitely a step to actually sanction them as a government. it has been a long time coming. david cameron said that when he was foreign secretary he considered doing this. specifically what we know now is that the sanctions are mainly targeted about what these two men have said about inciting violence in the view of the west, these allies, in the west bank rather than gaza. and it is a specific attempt to say, look, what has been happening at the moment, they are encouraging and inciting violence and also the support

of more settlements against international law, it is threatening the possibility of an idea of a two state solution, so they have decided to act. the israelis, not surprisingly very unhappy. tell me more about the israeli reaction, but also what these sanctions actually mean in practice. it means that these two men would no longer be able to travel to the uk or to australia or new zealand or to canada or to norway. they will also be an asset freeze, they are not allowed to have any kind of financial relationship with anybody in any capacity and any of those countries. even if it is passing some money to a relative who was living there or anything like that. we don't know the financial circumstances of these two individuals, so it is impossible to know precisely what actual impact it will have on them. the impact is political, and what is interesting is that even people within the israeli firmament who are not supporters of these too, remember they are very much a far right nationalist

end of the government. there are other people in the opposition that are saying this is a wrong decision by the allies, because what it will do is further support for itamar ben-gvir and ten three mac in israel. in terms of what we have seen in the uk. we were watching that session only last week in the house of commons and you got a real sense of the growing concern, the growing anger cross party in terms of mps, and again and again in that session, the phrase was used, words are not enough. so that is why potentially we have seen what we have seen today, but also what else is in the locker for the uk government? obviously it could restrict further arm sales, it did that last year, suspending some arm sales licenses, about 30, but there are a lot more that could be restricted. the big question is could the british government at some point recognise the state of israel? this is a discussion that has taken place behind closed doors at the moment amongst various allies there is a big conference in

new york next week hosted by the france and saudi arabia at length this will be discussed. whether they will get to the point, it is part of the process, as you say, there is a steady increase and escalation of action that reflects frustration with these allies who are all supporters of israel, but they are all under political pressure, growing political pressure, simply the scale of what is happening both in the west bank and gaza, that they felt the need to act so they have acted. thanks for taking us through all of that. we will pause for a moment or two, when we are back we live on capitol hill, the us defence secretary question by

let's turn to that live event in washington - the us defence secretary -

pete hegseth - is in front of the house appropriations sub-committee on defence. russia, ukraine, nato all likely to dominate - but there'll be huge focus on questions about los angeles and president trump sending in the national guard - and news that hegseth is also deploying us marines. throw in the mix questions about the signal chat group that the defence secretary used, with all those issues around national security - and it could be quite an explosive session. before that, i also want to show you - these live pictures from the uk defence select committee - where the outgoing chief of the defence staff, sir tony radakin is about to take questions. again - the answers will be fascinating, around the recent strategic defence review - the us call to spend 5% of gdp on defence - and the prime minister saying, the country needs to move to a 'war fighting readiness'. lots to juggle.

but with me to do that - and analyse - is shashank joshi - defence editor at the economist. we will come to russia, nato, ukraine all of that in a moment. in terms of the us defence secretary, that move to sending us marines to los angeles. when you first heard that, what did you think? well, it is not entirely surprising given we know what about president trump's to use the military for domestic political purposes in his first term, famously he asked one of his early defence secretary is whether he could use the army to shoot protesters in the feet. this is still highly unusual. he has not invoked the insurrection act which is what happened in 1992 in the los angeles riots when the governor asked president george hw bush to sending forces. the most recent comparable example of this of a president sending in

even a national guard without the consent of a governor is 1965. and that is when president lyndon johnson federalised, put under federal control, the alabama national guard to protect at the time civil right against segregationists. this is highly unusual. there, because defence secretary just answering about the national guard being deployed. this put the microphones up. under the previous administration, ice what to do its job whether it is minneapolis or los angeles. of the secretary please address them budget, thank you? you asked about the situation in los angeles... i asked about the budget. we have deployed national guard and marines to protect them in the execution of their duties, be because we ought to enforce immigration law in this country, unlike the government in 2020. there are

17,000 lapd, there would be 18,000 if not for the defund movement that folks like gavin newsom have implemented. chairman... we ask the budgetary questions, i will yield back my time if the secretary refuses to answer the budgetary question set before him. they are important, what training missions are happening? where are you pulling the money from and how are you planning this moving forward? these are budget questions that affect this committee and the decisions we are going to be making in a couple of hours. if you are not going to answer them, please let the chairman know and i will take back my time and i will yield it back. secretary, let us know what accounts you are pulling the money. thankfully, unlike the previous administration we have a 13% increase in defence budget and have the capability for our condenses and see, something we planned for. we have the funding to cover down on contingencies especially ones

as important maintaining law and order in an american major city. as far as training, or the units on the ground have been fully trained in their capabilities of what they are actually doing on the ground. the secretary needs to get back to the committee with the numbers, i would appreciate it. happy to submit them for the record. i will receive an answer to the question on the record. gentleman from oklahoma. thank you, welcome. i mentioned in my opening comment i am very concerned about retiring legacy systems. they need to be retired, they have been doing it too fast and not have replacements coming online. i have got a particular concern... there are 31 in the fleet, 15 retired since... is very feisty last exchange. we are going to in and out of this session and get the thoughts of our guest as we go along. the

defence select committee. in terms of what you are keeping your eye out for in this session with the us defence secretary, take me through it. i think there will be some very immediate political question such as the deployment of the marine corps and the national guard. there will be questions following on from signal gate, pete hegseth's involvement in sending classified information over signal the app, the public scandal that occurred about a month ago. there are much more substantive questions, and i think fundamentally these boil down to how the united states under this administration reconciles the various aspirations it has, because it wants a bigger navy, it wants a bigger nuclear forces, and wants to focus america's attention on the pacific and being able to deter a conflict with china. it wants to build its golden dome, this big missile defence shield including significant satellites and space based

interceptors. it cannot do all of those things within the existing budget, even though that is approaching roughly exceeding $1 trillion. really, where are the trade-offs chris? those are some the questions that pete hegseth will get over the next hour or so. a final thought before we go back to the session, the trump administration keeps using that figure of 5% gdp for countries to spend on their nato commitments. it will be interesting also what we will hear from the outgoing chief of dissent staff here in the uk, but in terms of that 5% figure, how problematic you think that is with the americans absolutely set on it, and how realistic is it? the single most important thing i can tell everyone here is that the 5% figure is a complete nonsense. it really is 3.5% plus 1.5%, and the 3.5% is core defence spending of the stuff you and i would obviously consider to be real defence spending, tanks, planes, military capabilities.

the 1.5% is essentially an excess fund in which countries can put things like cyber spending convert infrastructure spending, stuff that contributes to national defence but is not really a court defence capability. it is completely realistic states and europe could aspire to 3.5%, but even america is not at 3.5%. america under the current budget is just over 3%, may be 3.2%. so it is feasible, but when you hear 5%, your ears should perk up and you should think, hang on a minute, what is really in that number and how do we split up? that is the one message i hope everyone goes away with listening to this. very interesting analysis. stay there, but i want to go back to that session lie. i would just urge you to look at this pretty carefully as you make the decision. we certainly will as a committee. i don't know how much time i've got left because the clock is not right. you are the chairman!

laughter i will try and be respectful to the committee. i have another question if i may. and i think probably a lot of members have had these concerns. i am largely very much in favour of the hiring freezes and some of the things you have done personnel -wise, this is not a criticism, but i do hear that we have certain exempt positions like aircraft mechanics, like firefighters, we have a problem with that again, field artillery and defence artillery as well, it is a military. i don't like being critical but we are having a hard time, these are exempt categories, can you tell me where we're at on that? because these are mission-critical people. it is a great question, sir. it is something we are playing close attention to. we meet on it multiple times a week, and includes shipbuilding

capabilities, childcare centres. there are a lot of decisions that affect our industrial base, our capabilities or our families that we are working diligently to ensure we are getting those exceptions as quickly as possible, those waivers. but we are still trying to do right by the civilian force, which has got too bloated too fast and is mostly right sides for military separations. so i acknowledge that and we can get you a full list of the exemptions as well to make sure you understand why we were making trade-offs. i would appreciate there very much. thank you for your courtesy. thank you, mr chairman. i would like to focus, mr secretary, my question on submarines and national security, our military shipbuilding and as i said specifically, submarines, critical investment for national security and the economy of my home state of connecticut. this is a yes or no question, mr secretary. do you agree that continued

investment of the department of defence in submarine production is in fact critical to the united states national security and military readiness? very critical. yes, thank you. we agree. there will continue to be a critical asset to do deter adversary sustained... the defence department should continue to support these programmes. what is the status of the department's investments in submarine programmes? 14% increase in fy 26 on the columbia. substantial increase in the virginia as well. we are ensuring defence. the submarine base that has been left behind and neglected is fully invested on funding submarines. we more than have, go back to last november, but i want to move on. do you know what our submarine production currently stands?

let's speak to shashank joshi, defence editor of the economist magazine. let me ask you a more general question, we heard a question about hirings and firings of the defence department. at different stages they have been unconfirmed reports of chaos behind-the-scenes, what are you hearing in terms of that area? i think the biggest challenge is the leadership, because what has happened in the last several months is that the defence secretary pete hegseth has lost many of his most important aids and personal stuff. this is not low-level employees, these are very, very senior people and they are not anti-pete hegseth or anti-trump figures. they are loyalist, pro-maga people. they lost their main communications aid, they lost many people working in their senior officers, they were accused under some pretty questionable rationale of leaking information to the press and then pete hegseth's personal lawyer took over that investigation and supplied

misleading information to the white house. to cut a long story short, the sense is this is a pentagon that is one of the most significant bureaucracies in the american government, perhaps one of the most significant bureaucracies anywhere in the world, being run by a former fox news host who has little expense of running large complex organisations. the second-in-command, often actually puts together the budget and that is steve feinberg, a former finance and private equity guy, he has also not worked in defence for a long time. i think there are serious questions asked as to how the department can manage all of this as well as ongoing military operations at the same time. we have to live there, we are closing this half hour, thank you so much and navigating us through that. that is pete hegseth continuing to take questions. we are also keeping an eye on the outgoing chief of general staff here in front of uk defence select committee. we will bring you the key significant statements

from both of them here on today's verified live. we