US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and John Spellar

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Might my hon. Friend not want to question why the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be exerting some influence—undesirable, I would say—over the Trident renewal programme, do not seem to have managed, or even tried, to exert that influence to get this issue debated? Nuclear policy has been debated, as I will say later; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made Labour’s position very clear. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) think that the Liberal Democrats have not insisted on having a debate?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Minister invites me into a difficult situation. I cannot speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, nor would they want me to. They apparently wanted a Trident review, with no like-for-like replacement. The review took place, and it is a matter of record and of history.

On the question of this debate, I do not know what pressure was or was not applied by particular Ministers. I know that a number of Back-Bench MPs on both sides of the House believe, as I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest East would agree, that parliamentary scrutiny of all things is important; that is why we are sent here as Members of Parliament. As for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on nuclear weapons, he and I have a slightly different history on this matter, and we have debated it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there was a Trident review. It came to the self-evident conclusion that if we are to maintain the nuclear deterrent, continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way of doing so, in spite of many fanciful schemes that have been dreamt up by the Liberal Democrats. He has a perfectly straightforward, long-standing and honourable position of being opposed, but where does he think that the Liberal Democrats now stand on the issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, it is—[Interruption.] My friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) helps me in this. It is an unfair question. I do not know and I cannot tell, but I hope that the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley will come round to the view that nuclear weapons are unsustainable, expensive, dangerous and immoral, and that the world would be a much safer place if the five declared nuclear weapon states stood up to their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and took steps towards disarmament. This debate is not solely about Trident; it is about the mutual defence agreement. Nevertheless, there is obviously a close connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

We can draw a veil now over the incoherence and absence of the Liberal Democrats, and get down to the serious and proper debate—it is certainly a proper debate to have—about Britain’s nuclear posture. It is a debate that my party has engaged in for a considerable number of years, in fact ever since the great post-war Attlee and Bevin Government commissioned Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a policy that, I am pleased to say, continues today.

Having said that, none of us should underestimate the weighty issues—both the hon. Members who have already spoken stressed this point—that should weigh heavily on all those who have to make these decisions or arguments. I say that because it is very clear that there are huge issues. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, nobody underestimates the impact of nuclear weapons nor the potential devastation that they could cause. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are a fact in our world.

I partly differ from my hon. Friend in this regard. He made passing reference to the non-proliferation treaty conference that is due to take place next year. Clearly, it will be resolved by—we could say by the nuclear weapon states, but frankly the key discussions that need to take place are between the USA and Russia. If agreement can be reached by them, we should rightly be part of the subsequent discussions. However, as I say, the key initial discussions must be between the USA and Russia.

I do not think that any of the participants in this debate about nuclear weapons, including those who have spoken today or in similar parliamentary debates, in any way underestimate the impact of nuclear weapons on those directly affected, on the environment or indeed on the wider world.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, discussion between the USA and Russia on nuclear weapons would be a good thing; anything that helps nuclear disarmament is a good thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last two five-yearly conferences both agreed that there should be a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, and that at the last review—the preparatory conference last year—every state agreed that that should happen? Therefore, I am sure that he will join me in pushing the Government to do their best to initiate, or bring about, that zone. Otherwise, the danger is of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There are other countries besides Israel that could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.

[Mr Spellar]

I take my hon. Friend back to the Attlee memorandum, and indeed to many other documents by those who have written about this subject. That is because the key issue—as Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is also a committed Christian and someone who has thought very deeply about these issues, has said—is the removal of the risks of war and instability. That is absolutely crucial in all these circumstances, including in the middle east. That is why it is so important to achieve a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, although Israel-Palestine is by no means the only source of tension in the middle east. We are seeing so many conflicts taking place in that unhappy region, and that is without any question of nuclear weapons, although, sadly, chemical weapons has been another issue. The resolution of those conflicts and the creation of a stable and peaceful environment is so important.

In the meantime, notwithstanding that, it is also important that the UK plays its part—indeed, it has played its part more than any other country, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—in reducing the proportion of our nuclear armoury. Significantly, that took place under the defence team that I was a member of in 1997 to 2001, but, to be fair I should say that it has been continued by our successors not only in the Labour Government, but in this Conservative Government as well.

Egypt

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and John Spellar

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing this debate and for the remarks he made in introducing it.

The situation in Egypt is dangerous and sad. The abuse regarding the right of protest and the abuse of human rights has been continual in Egypt for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) correctly pointed out that the military are back in control of government, as indeed they have been in control or supportive of government for most of the period since the second world war, if not longer. The army is the big factor in Egypt. We also have to recognise that all of Egypt’s constitutions, including the latest constitution that has just been voted through by yet another referendum, which is the third in three years, gives a unique and special place to the army in society and gives it a degree of independence—way beyond any sense of parliamentary control—that nobody in this country or in Europe would accept. Indeed, the Egyptian army has its own economy and source of income. Egyptian society is essentially a process of debate with the power of the armed forces, as opposed to anyone else, and we have to recognise that as one of the big factors.

The other big factor, of course, is the events over the past three years since the Arab spring. Everyone who recognised what was happening across north Africa and the middle east always thought that Egypt would be the last place to have mass protests, but eventually there were huge protests in Tahrir square that resulted in the removal and trial of Mubarak, who is still in custody. The protests did not end the power of the army, which during that period was clever in presenting itself as some kind of democratic force on the side of popular opinion. A constitution was produced, which was followed by the election of President Morsi.

Initially, the rest of the world was keen to do business with Morsi. He was due to come to Britain, and somewhere I have an invitation to meet him. He was arrested and imprisoned on a Monday, and our meeting was due on the Thursday. I then got the most peculiar e-mail that I have ever received, saying, “It appears that President Morsi will not be able to attend the meeting.” The e-mail did not give any reason why he was not able to attend the meeting. I believe that you were also due to be at that discussion, Mr Havard. Morsi has been in prison ever since.

I am not a spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood—I have many criticisms of many organisations, including the brotherhood—but one has to recognise that it has been an important factor in Egyptian society since its foundation in 1928. The brotherhood has large support, and its leadership and membership have suffered a lot of imprisonment since its foundation. The brotherhood has often been banned—by the British, by various Egyptian Governments, by Nasser, by Mubarak and by many others—so when the brotherhood finally won election it was an important turning point in Egyptian history.

Those who protested against the brotherhood presidency and Government—there were huge protests within a year—rather bizarrely turned to the army for their salvation. I have asked various friends on the left of Egyptian politics where that narrative came from. When people are making democratic protests against a Government and its authoritarian measures—indeed, there were plenty of authoritarian measures under Morsi—where in the democratic alternatives does one turn to the army for salvation? That is the conundrum. The Government that Sisi now leads, and of which he will no doubt become President in a short time, have been as oppressive of the opposition, albeit a different opposition, as the Morsi Government were. Large numbers of people have been killed or imprisoned, and the behaviour of Sisi’s Government towards human rights in Egypt is not good. Although one can understand the degree of opposition to Mubarak, to Morsi and now to the current Government, one should be careful of endorsing a military regime and the oppression of human rights that it is now undertaking.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is that not the crux of the issue? The commitment to pluralism and peaceful change of Government, recognising that Governments come and go, is crucial. Is not one of the problems that, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood failed on that level of commitment?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Under the Morsi presidency and the then new membership of the Egyptian Parliament there was no development of plurality in politics or of a wide range of secular and non-secular political parties. There were a lot of attacks, particularly on religious minorities, which is totally unacceptable.

I have been to Egypt twice, both times en route back and forth from Gaza. I spent some time in Cairo this time last year, and I spent a lot of time talking to people in Tahrir square and meeting various others. I was struck by the level of antipathy towards the Muslim Brotherhood among people who had voted for it in the election a very short time previously. They voted for the brotherhood on the basis that it was not a continuation of the military governance of Egypt, but they rapidly became disappointed in what the brotherhood was doing. The situation is complicated, and of course there is a degree of polarisation, but there is also a massive abuse of the human rights of religious minorities and others, about which we should be concerned.

This is my last point. Will the Minister undertake to make representations on the position of religious and ethnic minorities in Egypt? Will he specifically make representations on the position of journalists who have been attempting to report what is going on in Egypt? I tabled an early-day motion on the arrest of al-Jazeera journalists on 29 December 2013. Those journalists include: the bureau chief Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who is a Canadian national; Peter Greste, an Australian national who formerly worked for the BBC; Baher Mohamed; and an Egyptian cameraman, Mohamed Fawzy. One of them has been released, but the others remain in prison. As far as I am aware, they have not been tried, and I believe they are being held incommunicado in prison. Jim Boumelha, the president of the International Federation of Journalists, has presented a statement:

“We join international condemnation of the journalists’ arrest and demand that they are released with immediate effect. These are working journalists who have committed no crime and were simply doing their jobs. By continuing to detain these journalists the Egyptian government is undermining the right to press freedom and freedom of expression in the country and calling into question its attitude towards basic human rights.”

A number of journalists have lost their lives in 2013: Mick Deane, a 61-year-old Sky News cameraman; Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz, a 26-year-old journalist with Gulf News and the UAE-based Xpress newspaper; Ahmed Abdel Gawad, a reporter for Al Akhbar newspaper; and Mosab Al-Shami, a photographer for the Rassd news website. Those journalists lost their lives because they were trying to report the conflict.

Many people, including all of us in this Chamber, would argue about the way in which particular journalists allegedly report things. I have carefully watched how a number of international channels report what is going on in Cairo, including Russia Today, France 24, CNN, al-Jazeera, the BBC and Sky News, and one recognises that all of those journalists are doing their best to report the facts of what is going on. I guess those facts are unacceptable either to the army or other authorities in Egypt, hence the al-Jazeera team has been arrested—al-Jazeera continues to try to report in Egypt. The National Union of Journalists has produced a briefing on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists, and I would be grateful if the Minister would undertake to make urgent representations to the Egyptian Government for the release of those journalists. Will he also undertake that the British embassy will engage as rapidly and strongly as possible with the Egyptian Government on those questions and the questions of minorities and religious freedoms?

Today’s debate has given us an opportunity to try to understand something of the reality of life in Egypt, recognising that it is the largest country, with the youngest population and lowest level of natural resources per capita, in the region. It has some gas, oil and other natural resources, but their value is nowhere near that of what is held by other countries. Young people in Egypt have a thirst for jobs, homes and some success in life. One should not underestimate the level of economic demand behind much of the protest. If those economic demands are not met, the new Government in Egypt will also feel the wrath of the people, who feel they have been short-changed by poverty and corruption for a long time.

NATO

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and John Spellar

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for introducing the debate and describing the work of the Assembly, and for dipping into the history of NATO. That is a good starting point.

At the end of the second world war there was a triumph and a tragedy. The triumph was the end of the war, the defeat of Nazism, the foundation of the United Nations and the universal declaration of human rights and the UN charter. The tragedy was the descent into the cold war, the foundation of the Warsaw pact and NATO, and the decades-long nuclear arms race with costs borne by both sides and the economic problems that ensued as a result. Then there was the election of Gorbachev as President of the USSR, and his proposals for disarmament. The Reykjavik summit was unfortunately neutralised by Reagan’s proposals, and Gorbachev’s proposals for a common European home and promotion of European security and co-operation were not responded to effectively by the USA or NATO. Gorbachev eventually went and the Warsaw pact collapsed. Surely the 1990s were a time for reassessment and looking at an alternative. Why did NATO continue at that point when its cold war raison d’être had gone?

The Library briefing contains a helpful statement by J. L. Granatstein, a distinguished research fellow from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. In the National Post on 5 March 2013 he wrote:

“Perhaps it might have been better if NATO had wound itself up at the end of the Cold War. The alliance instead sought for a new role, a new strategic purpose, and it found it outside the boundaries of the alliance.”

He goes on to mention Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and later the Libyan adventures of NATO.

I think we should seriously consider the whole purpose of NATO. It was founded as part of the cold war and had a specific area of responsibility—the north Atlantic. It successively increased its operations out of area, and with the Lisbon treaty it does two things. First, it vastly expands its area of operation to include Afghanistan, which by no stretch of the imagination can be anything to do with the north Atlantic, any more than can the seas off Somalia or North Korea, South Korea and south Asia.

[Mr Spellar]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in a more communicated and linked-up world, threats to our security from other parts of the world can have a significant impact on our security at home? Piracy off the coast of Somalia is a real threat to trade lanes between western Europe and east Asia. Those are massive trade lanes for the continuing prosperity of the world. Is that a threat to our security, and should we respond to it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Of course piracy off the coast of Somalia is not a good thing. Instability in Somalia is very bad, but surely one solves that problem by political support for changes in Somalia—to some extent that is happening and considerable changes are taking place. I sometimes get the feeling that NATO spent the 1990s and early 2000s looking for something to do, and that it was more than pleased to get involved in Afghanistan and present itself as the armed wing of the United Nations. It may be that the UN should have its own force, and that is a matter for consideration and debate. However, when NATO calls itself the arm of the UN, what does that say to countries that are not in or aligned to NATO, or indeed are deeply suspicious of NATO and its activities? Members who talk about NATO as being the effective arm of the UN should think carefully about the implications of what they are saying.

The costs of NATO membership are considerable—probably far greater than those of membership of the European Union, which seems to excite massive debate on the Government Benches. NATO requires 2% of our gross national product to be spent on defence, and Members complain that other countries do not meet those demands. Presumably, NATO membership requires a level of expenditure that many countries simply cannot afford, yet they are required to make that expenditure and, for the most part, to buy those arms from the United States or approved suppliers that produce NATO-issue equipment. We must think far more seriously about why we are in NATO and what it is achieving.

Let us consider Afghanistan from 2001 onwards. Yes, 9/11 was a dreadful event and an act of murder against civilians, but was it an appropriate response to invade Afghanistan? Twelve years later, 400 British soldiers, a larger number of American soldiers, and a very much larger number of Afghan civilians, and others, are dead. Drone aircraft are operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there is a real threat to the civil liberties of everyone in the world from Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and anti-terror legislation. That has not made the world a safer or more secure place.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and John Spellar

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing the Bill. It is a great pleasure to deal with a genuinely bipartisan Bill. As he rightly said, the Bill follows a consultation on a draft Bill in 2009. I do not propose to detain the House too long on this issue, albeit for possibly a little longer than my 57-second contribution last week.

The Bill would implement a new annex to the Antarctic treaty that was agreed back in 2005 on liability arising from environmental emergencies. It requires anyone undertaking activities in Antarctica to ensure that measures are in place to deal with any environmental damage, together with contingency plans for any damage that might occur. The present Bill was based on the Bill consulted on in 2009 by the previous Government, but it does not contain part 2 of the original Bill covering the requirement for contingency and safety planning by all British operators. In that context, I understand that the Minister’s officials believe that these issues can be addressed through the permit system, so that part of the original Bill is not required. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to be a bit more explicit and to send a clear message to operators—and reassurance to those who have a passionate interest in the Antarctic environment—that that is the case, and that the Bill follows the long line of measures to protect this vital environment. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue when he winds up.

The Antarctic environmental legislation is a very good example of international co-operation on matters of great concern for the future of the planet. The treaty froze territorial disputes relating to the continent in order to pursue peaceful scientific investigation and conservation. Several hon. Members have referred to examples of that, some of them at considerable length. In the 1991 protocol, stringent measures on environmental protection were introduced, including—importantly—a 50-year moratorium on mineral extraction. The current permit requirements for British expeditions entering the Antarctic were introduced in the Antarctic Act 1994—in another example of the bipartisan nature of these discussions and concerns about the issue—which implemented the treaty’s protocol on environmental protection.

Why is this Bill so important and necessary? The Antarctic, as has been stressed by several hon. Members, is a pristine and highly sensitive environment that is of great significance in the global ecosystem. It contains, for example, 90% of the ice on earth and 60% to 70% of its fresh water. At a time of rising sea levels—mentioned with great concern yesterday by Mayor Bloomberg in New York—the melting of this ice would see a dramatic increase in sea levels. The seasonal growth of sea ice each year is one of earth’s most significant seasonal cycles, covering 19 million sq km at its maximum extent, which is one and half times the area of the Antarctic continent.

The Southern ocean also dominates the global oceans and influences the climates of many countries. In that context, I was pleased and honoured earlier this year to visit the Australian Antarctic division in Hobart, Tasmania. That is a valuable resource, and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be well aware of the extensive co-operation with our Commonwealth ally, Australia, on this issue. This is a valuable resource not only for Australia but for the international community. It monitors the impact of climate and environmental change, conservation and ecosystems onshore and near shore, and in the vast Southern ocean.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that the marine conservation zones are strongly endorsed and supported as a means of protecting fish stocks and the food chain from the larger mammals that inhabit the southern oceans? If the fish stocks are removed and too much krill are taken, long-term damage will be done to the whole ecosystem.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend and fellow allotment holder is exactly right. It is of considerable concern that no proper evaluation has been made of what take of krill in the Southern ocean is sustainable right the way up the food chain. Much more scientific work will need to be done before we understand the matter. Harvesting is right and proper, but we do not want mining of the populations in the Southern ocean, because of the deep long-term effects all the way up the food chain. I understand that even now there is considerable concern about whether there are adequate food supplies for penguins in the area. That demonstrates the enormous importance of the Southern ocean for the ecosystem, although, as I have indicated, it goes much wider than the Southern ocean area. I agree with him about that and with his comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Implementation of the treaty is rightly welcomed here, but the FCO should engage actively with other signatories to ensure the more rapid implementation of this important work.

Those measures are extremely welcome, and I am sure that any concerns that hon. Members have can be dealt with in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stroud indicated. The broad thrust, however, has support across the House. It is slightly disturbing and contradictory, then, that alongside these excellent measures we are looking at proposals to merge the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre. As I indicated in an intervention, the decision not to do that was extremely welcome, and I once again place on the record my tribute to the Science and Technology Committee, under its excellent Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for producing a report that was highly critical of that measure. Its criticism was based not only on the scientific contribution, the excellent work done and the loss of scientific capability but, as hon. Members have mentioned, on a concern about the message it might send in the south Atlantic area.

Our noble colleague Lord West rightly drew attention to another problem that he claimed could lead to us sleepwalking towards another Falklands—a matter of enormous concern to him, obviously, given his heroic record.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and John Spellar

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I fully agree that the de-Ba’athification programme and the disbanding of the Iraqi army contributed substantially to many of Iraq’s problems. I am turning that point around and saying that I do not want the established networks of the old corrupt parties or the well-organised networks of the Islamist groups, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, to have a free field.

What I am talking about is not taking such people out of the structure but ensuring that emerging democratic forces, which by definition have been underground but are not organised in a Leninist fashion, can develop the capacity to compete on an equal playing field. They will then be able to play a proper role and not be outgunned—literally, sometimes, but certainly in finance and capacity —by other parties, which would have a detrimental effect. I am talking about building alternative capacity rather than moving along the route that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is the best prospect for the future of democracy in the countries in question.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Tunisia, there is serious concern about the resurrection of many of the security forces that existed under the Ben Ali regime, which are treating protests and demonstrations with great brutality and great force? They are breaking them up and seem to be trying to suppress the very voices of dissent that brought about the huge changes in February in the first place.

[Mr Spellar]

We certainly ought to be concerned about that; my hon. Friend highlights another significant concern. Because of the vast array of countries across a wide and diverse region, our debates focus on certain countries. Inevitably, today’s debate will be focused primarily on Afghanistan and Libya, along with maybe one or two other countries. I am concerned that some of the countries that have been making some progress might start to slip off the radar, and it is important that we do not allow that to happen.

We must not allow our level of interest in the countries that are making progress to fall. Development there must be sustained, because there will not just be a steady path towards a democratic society. There will be pitfalls along the way. To make a comparison with eastern Europe again, the involvement of the secret police networks can be a considerable factor in the development of those countries, as I described earlier. We ought to be alert to that problem, but we should also take the positive way and build the capacity of democratic parties so that they can take the best advantage of democratic elections when they come.

I hope that Members of all parties will consider the role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other such bodies can play in building capacity for democratic parties. The Foreign Secretary has announced substantial cuts in the Foreign Office programme—the sum will go down from something like £139 million to £100 million. We did not get details, but we need to know whether the cuts will have an impact on those organisations and their programmes.

In the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, he talked about increasing our presence in a number of missions across the world. Interestingly enough, only one of those, Pakistan, is in the area that we are discussing today. There was, understandably, mention of a reduction in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in none of the other countries concerned did it seem there would be an increase in our local involvement despite the considerable interest that we need to be taking in them. On the face of it, that seems a slightly strange decision, and it would be helpful to have some explanation.

We have to recognise that not all of the liberation of eastern Europe went smoothly. Ethnic tensions rose to the surface, and in one case, Czechoslovakia, were resolved by a—fortunately peaceful—division of the state. Catastrophically, however, in Yugoslavia they led to vicious civil wars, appalling violence and the necessity for NATO intervention. Some states in north Africa and the middle east are fairly homogenous, but others are riven by ethnic differences and, in some cases, considerable and long-standing ethnic feuds. The international community must use all its endeavours to ensure that the outcome of the Arab spring is more like Poland than Yugoslavia. In that context, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Tunisia and hope, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), that we will not focus only on countries where there is conflict. We must also provide assistance to those that are making a more orderly transition.

I shall move on briefly to the middle east and the Israel-Palestine issue. I am sure that everyone in the House and internationally is frustrated by the failure to get engagement in substantive talks leading to the creation of a new Palestinian state, living peacefully side by side with Israel. We echo the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, which he repeated today, when he expressed Britain’s concern about the violence on the border and the loss of life, and called on all parties to exercise restraint. We should be persuaders for peace, to ensure that Palestinian aspirations can be realised alongside Israel’s equally legitimate desire for a peaceful existence within secure and recognised borders.