no, i don't think that is what the campaign is telling people to do. and we were clear throughout covid in interviews and otherforms and we were clear throughout covid in interviews and other forms of messaging that obviously people with serious health concerns should seek help and go to, whether it is emergency care, where ever it is, as they would previously do so. what we were highlighting, you know, there was a broader need people to break contact. that was in order to provide care for those who needed it and that would fundamentally save lives. i'm very proud of what the team achieved during that period. we team achieved during that period. - have evidence that in fact the nhs were so concerned about the impact of this messaging that they had to develop their own communications campaign as it were encouraging people themselves to come back to hospitals with non—thing—mac related

issues. were you aware of that? it was called the help us help you campaign? we was called the help us help you campaign?— was called the help us help you camaiun? ~ ., ., ., campaign? we would have regular camaians campaign? we would have regular campaigns to _ campaign? we would have regular campaigns to limit _ campaign? we would have regular campaigns to limit meetings - campaign? we would have regular campaigns to limit meetings with l campaign? we would have regular- campaigns to limit meetings with nhs england and the department of health. neverwas england and the department of health. never was this issue raised at any time with myself directly. we would have these calls every week, if not multiple times a week. i would also say that it is of course right and rational that the nhs should look to do micro—targeting campaigns to those who maybe at greater risk. that is of course very wise. but our approach is to try and have the maximum benefit as possible and save as many lives as possible. so if you are looking to move into more nuanced spaces it obviously breaks down the overarching message and you could have wider negative

context of if you had lower compliance, the negative outcomes overall will be worse. sometimes it is not making perfect enemy of the good. is not making perfect enemy of the aood. �* ., ., ., ., ., ., good. i'm going to move on to a related subject. _ good. i'm going to move on to a related subject. we _ good. i'm going to move on to a related subject. we have - good. i'm going to move on to a related subject. we have heardl related subject. we have heard evidence about the spy b committee. professor rueben was one of the co—chairs of that committee. we have also seen their points of reference... also seen their points of reference. . ._ also seen their points of reference... �* ., ., reference... 0k, we're going to leave that _ reference... 0k, we're going to leave that inquiry _ reference... 0k, we're going to leave that inquiry there. - reference... 0k, we're going to i leave that inquiry there. apologies for some of the language you heard, obviously it is a live stream. if you want to carry on watching it you can watch on the live stream on our website so go to the bbc website you can see there. we are going to keep things cross but ijust want to bring you some breaking news that has come across in the last quarter of an hour or has come across in the last quarter ofan hour orso has come across in the last quarter of an hour or so and that is plans to close hundreds of railway ticket offices in england have been scrapped. the department for transport says that it has asked

train operators to withdraw their proposals. you will remember that plans from train companies to close railway ticket offices were to cut costs, caused a lot of protest from passenger groups and disability groups and the unions representing the railway workers. so this statement has come through from the transport secretary saying the consultation on ticket offices has now ended with the government making clear to the rail industry throughout the process that any resulting proposals must meet a high threshold of the serving passengers. we have engaged with accessibility groups throughout this process and listen carefully to passengers, as well as colleagues in parliament. the proposals have resulted from this process do not meet the high threshold set by ministers and so the government has asked train operators to withdraw their proposals. so that is news that is coming in the last quarter of an hour or so that the closure of hundreds of railway ticket offices in england has been scrapped. right now we're going to turn our attention to the labour leader keir

starmer, who is about to give a speech on the middle east amid growing tensions in his party over the israel gaza conflict. when he took over the reins of his party from jeremy corbyn, sir keir starmer promised to root out anti—semitism in the party and his stance has been staunchly pro—israel since the hamas attacks on the country. but a number of frontbenchers in the labour party are diverging on the official party line about whether to call for a ceasefire in gaza. let's take a look at sir keir starmer�*s position and what we can expect from today's speech. sir keir starmer is expected to restate his support for a humanitarian pause to allow aid into gaza. but he will argue a permanent ceasefire would leave hamas with the capability to carry out more attacks. so by not backing a full ceasefire at the labour leader is aligned with the uk government as well as the us and the eu. sir keir starmer had previously provoked anger from some within the labour

party over his answer to a question about whether cutting off water and power to gaza was, quote, appropriate response. he said i don't want to step away from the core principles that israel has a right to defend itself. so let's speak to our political correspondent ian watson about all of this now. it is an important speech for sir keir starmer isn't it, ian? it is an important speech for sir keir starmer isn't it, ian?— starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he _ starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he wants _ starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he wants to _ starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he wants to set _ starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he wants to set his - starmer isn't it, ian? it is. first of all he wants to set his sights i of all he wants to set his sights beyond the current conflict to set out in a statesman—like way the fact that the labour party supports a two state solution in the middle east, a palestinian state and israel existing side by side and effectively to sate his party if we really want this to come about then you need a labour government in order to do it. he will also give some distance from the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu on the issue. but the more pressing issue issue. but the more pressing issue is how does he handle his own party with these growing calls for a ceasefire including from one form or

another from 13 of his own frontbenchers, some of the people that speak on behalf of the party. that is where the tone is important because although he will simply be saying, look, we can't back a ceasefire, it would allow hamas to regroup. he will be sympathetic to those who wish him to go further and he will explain rather than berate his critics. he will say to them, look, we are doing something that is like the eu unlike the us we are calling for a pause in order to get more aid into gaza to deal with humanitarian crisis. but the longer term ceasefire would allow them to regroup and would not be in the best interests of peace. the question is whether that response is going to be enough for those who have been critical of him. and then he has taken no action as labour leader. some will say if you're doubling down on this opposition to a ceasefire then perhaps it is time for us to go and give up ourfront benchjobs. so there is for us to go and give up ourfront bench jobs. so there is a for us to go and give up ourfront benchjobs. so there is a degree of jeopardy here for sir keir starmer was white yeah, that is the interesting aspect isn't it? how he

deals with the senior members in the party on this and so far he hasn't really said anything publicly about what they have said, has a? his position as he wants to engage with them and listen to them. we have seen since he took over from jeremy corbyn as labour leader and iron discipline in the party, people have been suspended or expelled or deselected as potential candidates if they disagreed with the line and disagreed with his movement away from the policies of thejeremy corbyn era. he has been more accommodating on this issue because i think quite frankly he has to. there are people across the political spectrum within labour, not just on the political spectrum within labour, notjust on the left, who have concerns in this issue. and mps who concerned constituents with high numbers of muslim communities. so he does have a very difficult political tightrope to walk. while not deviating from his own particular policy position he has to show an understanding of the pressure that some of his own mps are under from constituents and their own rank and

file members. we constituents and their own rank and file members-_ constituents and their own rank and file members. we have seen one mp suspended. — file members. we have seen one mp suspended, andrew _ file members. we have seen one mp suspended, andrew mcdonald - file members. we have seen one mp suspended, andrew mcdonald for . file members. we have seen one mp l suspended, andrew mcdonald for what the party described as a deeply offensive comments at a pro—palestinian rally haven't we? that's right. that line was drawn with andy mcdonald, a former shadow minister who is on the left of the party. perhaps deficiency has... but he was suspended for using the phrase between the river and the sea, between the riverjordan and the mediterranean, which was seen as similar by those around keir starmer to this chant about from the river to this chant about from the river to the sea, in other words a chant used by those who wish israel to be expunged from the map entirely. andy mcdonald completely disagrees with how his remarks have been interpreted. also remarked they wanted palestinians and israelis to live together in what he called peaceful liberty. he hopes to be

reinstated by cooperating with the inquiry. but from sir keir starmer�*s point of view he is still very sensitive to this charge of the party in thejeremy corbyn era been accused of anti—semitism. we want to emphasise that he has moved away from that era. we emphasise that he has moved away from that era.— from that era. we are 'ust seeing keir starmer * from that era. we are 'ust seeing keir starmer taking _ from that era. we are just seeing keir starmer taking his _ from that era. we are just seeing keir starmer taking his seat - from that era. we are just seeing | keir starmer taking his seat in the front row here at chatham house where this gathering is. getting an introduction i believe, talking ahead of sir keir starmer�*s speech. obviously you talked about the views of the party and the senior members and the backbenchers. do you have any sense of how labour the limit labour supporters feel on the gaza israel issue?— israel issue? certainly the left-wing _ israel issue? certainly the left-wing groups - israel issue? certainly the left-wing groups such - israel issue? certainly the left-wing groups such as. israel issue? certainly the _ left-wing groups such as momentum left—wing groups such as momentum suggest that their polling says that a ceasefire rather than simply a temporary pause in hostilities is actually popular with the wider public. i think what is very much in the minds of the labour leadership

is quite simply this, that in terms of credibility, he has to be seen to be supporting not necessarily the current israeli prime minister but israel against hamas and that is important too. because if you were to ask the public a different question of course they would be very anti—group—mack, who are prescribed as a terrorist group. he also has to make the point that hamas are not the palestinian people and he is in favour of getting aid into gaza. on the wider point, certainly the type of support that labour needs to win back and attract back keir starmer�*s view is taking a tough line against terrorism and a tough line against terrorism and a tough line against the horrific attacks that we have seen in the middle east is hugely important. the difficulty i think is that some of the rank—and—file members of the party and some of his own frontbenchers think there has been a disproportionate reaction by israel. some of talked about collective punishment imposed on the people of

gaza and clearly people with strong opinions inside the labour party. jewish people are coming back into the labour party under keir starmer. people representing muslim seats, the majority muslim communities, he has got a very, very difficult balance to strike. but as i say, i think that balance is going to be struck more in terms of tone and substance and he's going to stick to that position that a ceasefire would help only hamas, rather than actually necessarily in the longer term helping the palestinian people. thanks very much for now. that is our political correspondent ian watson. let's cross to chatham house, this is bronwen maddox, the ceo of the think tank giving a speech before we hear from ceo of the think tank giving a speech before we hearfrom sir keir starmer. speech before we hear from sir keir starmer. ~ .., speech before we hear from sir keir starmer. ~ _, ,, ,, .,

thank you and thank you all for coming this morning. and thank you to chatham house for hosting and for your resolute commitment to dialogue on this issue. an issue that so many people recoil from out of despair. on this issue. an issue that so many people recoilfrom out of despair. a despair that in the last three weeks has arguably reached new depths. indeed, anyone who has followed this closely and seen images that can never be unseen. tiny bodies wrapped in bundles in israel and gaza. mothers and fathers shattered by the ultimate grief. the innocent dead. israeli, palestinian, muslim, jew. it is a tragedy where the facts on the ground are changing by the minute but where the consequences

will last for decades. and the trauma might neverfade. a crisis where the search for solutions is shrouded notjust by the where the search for solutions is shrouded not just by the fog where the search for solutions is shrouded notjust by the fog of where the search for solutions is shrouded not just by the fog of war but by an ever darkening cloud of misinformation. but nonetheless, we must do what we can and we must explain what we do. democratic accountability matters, particularly in light of the rising temperature on british streets. our efforts must respond to the two immediate tragedies, to the 7th of october, the biggest slaughter ofjews, and thatis the biggest slaughter ofjews, and that is why they were killed, do not doubt that, since the holocaust. men, women, children, babies

murdered, mutilated and tortured by the terrorists of hamas. over 200 hostages, including british citizens taken back into gaza. make no mistake, this is terrorism on a scale and brutality that few countries have ever experienced, certainly not this one. and that is an immutable fact that must drive our response to these events. as most, the humanitarian catastrophe in gaza which again plays out on a previously unimaginable scale. thousands of innocent palestinians dead, displaced, desperate forfood and water, reduced to drinking contaminated filth, hiding out in hospitals shelter. whilst in those

same buildings, babies lie in incubators that could turn off at any moment. at every stage during this crisis, my approach has been driven by the need to respond to both these tragedies. to stand by the right to self defence of any nation which suffers terrorism on this scale. alongside the basic human rights of innocent palestinians court, once again, in the crossfire. to focus at every stage on the practical steps that might make a material difference on the ground. in the short term, on the ground. in the short term, on the humanitarian conditions in gaza and the efforts by israel to rescue her hostages. but in the future, also to the hope that i know still burns brightly for those who want

peace. the two state solution, and israel where every citizen enjoys the security they need and viable palestinian state, where the palestinian state, where the palestinian people and their children enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we all take for granted. and that is why while i understand calls for a ceasefire at this stage, i do not believe that it is the correct position now. the two reasons. one, because a ceasefire always freezes any conflict in the state where it currently lies. and as we speak, that would leave hamas with the infrastructure and the capability to carry out the sort of attack we saw on october the 7th. attacks that are still ongoing.

hostages who should be released still held. hamas would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately. and it is this context which explains my second reason. which is that our current calls for pauses in the fighting for clear and specific humanitarian purposes and which must start immediately is right in practice, as well as principal. in fact, it is at this moment the only credible approach that has any chance of achieving what we all want to see in gaza, the urgent alleviation of palestinian suffering. aid distributed quickly, space to get hostages out. that is why it is also the position shared by our major allies in the us and

the eu. and i urge all parties to heed its call. over time, the facts on the ground will inevitably change in relation to both hostages being rescued and hamas's capability to carry out attacks like we saw october the 7th and we must move to cessation of fighting as quickly as possible. because the reality is that neither the long—term security of israel nor long—term justice for palestine can be delivered by bombs and bullets. open—ended military action, action without a clear and desired political outcome is ultimately futile. this needs to begin now because a political agreement, however unlikely that seems today, however painful the

first steps are to take, is the only way to resolve this conflict once and for all. that is why our position and our counsel has always been that israel must submit to the rules of international law. the right to self defence is fundamental but it is not a blank check. the supply of basic utilities like water, medicines, electricity and, yes, fuel to civilians in gaza cannot be blocked by israel. every life matters, so every step must be taken to life matters, so every step must be ta ken to protect life matters, so every step must be taken to protect civilians from bombardment. palestinians should not be forced to leave their homes en masse. but where they have no choice but to flee within gaza, we need crystal clear guarantees that they will be able to return quickly. you

cannot overstate the importance of this last point. in conflicts like this, the most pawn filling up painful blows are those that land on the bruises of history. —— the most painful blows. it must be disavowed clearly and by all. because while it may feel like a truism, so often the trauma of the present leads to the tragedy of the future. hamas know this, they knew israel would have to respond. their aim on october the 7th was notjust to killjews, it was to bring death upon their fellow muslims in gaza. a plan written in blood to isolate israel from the

rest. destroy its improving relations with other arab nations and ultimately provoke wider regional conflicts across the middle east. that threat remains real. and i echo president biden�*s sage advice to israel, to understand in its own interests why a whirlwind of understandable emotion and rage must not blind it to the fact that it is hamas it must target, and hamas that is the enemy, hamas brutality that must be prevented and not the palestinian people who must be protected. so i say again, we have to get many more aid trucks across the rafah crossing. we have to get food, water, electricity, medicine and fuel into gaza. we have to preserve innocent lives. hospitals

must not be... must be protected and must not be... must be protected and must not be... must be protected and must not become targets. across the west we have been calling for this for weeks but it hasn't happened. the siege conditions haven't lifted. that is unacceptable and it cannot continue. the risk of regional escalation is real and it must be prevented. this is why millions of people across our country are rightly concerned. concerned as well about the impact this is having on communities here in britain. there are some who want us divided but our approach to multiculturalism is envied around the globe. jews, christians and muslims live side by side and this is so ordinary it is barely remarked upon. interfaith marriages are common, people celebrate each others traditions and

festivals as naturally as they do their own. the freedom of religious expression is uncontroversial. we don't stop often enough to reflect on how unusual this is, how britain's modern diverse democracy is an existential challenge to people all around the world who say this cannot be done. something we have worked hard for through the generations. and that at moments like this we have a responsibility to fight for. we cannot have a britain where jewish to fight for. we cannot have a britain wherejewish businesses are attacked, jewish schools marked with red paint, jewish families hiding who they are. we cannot have a britain where muslim women feel scared to take public transport, mosques are attacked, palestinian

restaurants receive death threats. no, this isn't our britain. and in the labour party we will have to reach out to communities under pressure and showed them the respect and empathy they deserve as a fundamental british right. but ultimately the gravest ramifications of failure will of course be felt in the middle east itself. for too long, the international community has put the israeli—palestinian conflict into the two difficult box. there is no recent equivalent of anything like the concerted push for peace we saw in the 1990s and the early 2000 is. now, what has happened is we have continually paid lip service to a two state solution because it is easier, convenient perhaps to look away. to look away

from gaza knowing it is controlled by those who want to killjews and wipe israel off the map. to look away from israel, knowing people live without the security which they deserve. to look away from the west bank, knowing more settlements are being built against international law. now, idon�*t being built against international law. now, i don't say any of this to start a new round of arguments or hand—wringing. instead, this must be a time for a new resolve, a renewed push from all parties to find a way to peace. it will mean engaging with our arab partners, working urgently on viable plans for palestine free from the terrorism of hamas. it will mean engaging with israel, seeking to address its security concerns in the future. but showing clearly that

the future. but showing clearly that the settlement building is unacceptable, unlawful and has to stop. the palestinian people need to know there is a genuine will and determination from israel, from arab states, from the west to finally address their plight in deeds as well as words. because the palestinian claim to statehood is not in the gift of a neighbour, it is in amiable right of the palestinian people. in the clear logic of any call for a two state solution. so my labour party will fight for that cause. we will work with international partners towards the recognition of a palestinian state as part of a negotiated, just and lasting peace. because even in the darkest days, in fact, especially in the darkest days, we have to keep alive the light of

peace. fight despite the horror of the present for the fragile hope of the present for the fragile hope of the future. focusing always on the difference we can make. this is an old conflict but it is not and never has been an issue that will be solved by the black—and—white simplicity of unbending conviction. rather the colour of peace always in conflict resolution is grey. and in the coming days and months we must do everything we can to fight for it. thank you very much. applause. keir starmer there talking at the chatham house think tank and i think now he's going to take some questions from the audience. thank

ou ve questions from the audience. thank you very much _ questions from the audience. thank you very much indeed _ questions from the audience. thank you very much indeed for _ questions from the audience. thank you very much indeed for that. - questions from the audience. thank you very much indeed for that. can | you very much indeed for that. can we kick off by asking a couple of questions. on this vision you have set out on the first question is what you think britain can't do it self? what influence it still has? you made a very direct call for international progress towards a two state solution, reviving what some people, as i said before, think has long gone. what is it that britain can do and what if you are in number ten at the moment would you do? thank you for that question. i think we have got to look at the short term, the here and now, and that is undoubtedly the urgent question of humanitarian aid. you have only got to see the images on our screens of innocent civilians suffering, dying, hospitals unable to cope, to know that we have to urgently address

that we have to urgently address that issue. and we have to pull together, we have to make that case humanitarian pauses to allow that aid to get in. it is urgent, it was urgent last week in the week before. this humanitarian crisis has been going on for a very, very long time. so that is the immediate. and to allow and argue for the release of the hostages. they should not have been taken, they should not be held and hamas should release them immediately. so those are the two immediately. so those are the two immediate things that we have to address. but i think britain also has to address the longer term because, and i know some people will say, look, in the current context it is impossible to even think about a two state solution. i don't accept that. i think that because of the desperation of the situation we are in we have to start a discussion about a two state solution. i think that looking away in the last ten, arguably 20 years, has been a

dereliction of responsibility and we have to take up that responsibility and we have to take it up now. so thatis and we have to take it up now. so that is what i would be concentrating on if we were in government now.— concentrating on if we were in government now. �* _ ., ., government now. and by that you mean takin: that government now. and by that you mean taking that it — government now. and by that you mean taking that it israel? _ government now. and by that you mean taking that it israel? making _ government now. and by that you mean taking that it israel? making those - taking that it israel? making those points to israel and perhaps qatar, which is negotiating with hamas? yes, to allies, to partners across the middle east, to the us, this has to be a concerted effort. i think too many people have looked away and simply said it is too difficult. knowing what has been going on in gaza, what has been going on in the west bank, they have looked away. we cannotjustify west bank, they have looked away. we cannot justify that any longer. justify that any longer. cannotjustify that any longer. justify that any longer.- cannotjustify that any longer. justify that any longer. thank you for that. justify that any longer. thank you for that- let _ justify that any longer. thank you for that. let me _ justify that any longer. thank you for that. let me ask _ justify that any longer. thank you for that. let me ask one - justify that any longer. thank you for that. let me ask one more. . justify that any longer. thank you l for that. let me ask one more. you are a lawyer of the legal background, not intending that to be a controversial statement. and, from what you have described a visual�*s actions at the moment, in its

justified pursuit, do you think