Right, let's turn to Labor now. A little earlier, I spoke to the Shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lamme. David Lamme, the Mail on Sunday this morning says that it has evidence that Angela Reina lied about her tax arrangements. What are you saying about it today?

I think the Mail on Sunday has evidence that Angela Reina, like so many families across the country, had and has a blended family. You meet someone, they have children, a previous arrangement. Many families up and down the country live in more than one home. That's what the photos I saw reflects, and it's consistent with the advice that Angela took in terms of her tax affairs from accountants, from lawyers. I don't think this is a story.

I think-Well, hang on. It is a story because what you're saying says that the place that she said was not her home was where she actually lived. Nobody's arguing that it isn't complicated and maybe some people make mistakes. Why didn't she just say, I may have made a mistake here. The law says what you're supposed to do. You can only have one home, and maybe she made a mistake. Why not just say that?

I think she's been clear all along.

No, she said she's done nothing wrong.

Yeah, so she's been clear she's done nothing wrong. She has our full support in that. Her arrangements, and certainly her tax arrangements, were subject to advice from accountants and from lawyers. She played by the rules, but yes, like everybody else, she had a complicated life and spent time in her husband's place, but also her place. Lots of families Can't do that. What is the story?

This is a very interesting point, Shadow Foreign Secretary, because if she's had this advice, why didn't she publish it? A year ago, she complained that Mr. Sunak had published his tax returns as Labor had demanded only after much delay. On Thursday, she said, You show me yours and I'll show you mine. He did. Why didn't she just get on with it and publish the advice if she had it?

Look, I think there's A different arrangement and expectation for the Prime Minister than there is in this context. We're not yet in government. But Trevor, I just want to make this point.

By the way, she said the same thing about David Cameron. She wanted David Cameron's tax affairs There's a tax status published, even for a period when he wasn't in Parliament. Why didn't she publish hers?

Can I make this point? We're in a political season. We all know that there's an election in May. We know why these smears are being run. It's to detract from the £870 that average families are less well off in this country as a result of the tax burden from the Tories. That's what this is really about. It's not about Angela Reina and her blended family. That's very smooth. It's about Tory chaos. She could get rid of this. Let's distract. She's not going to publish that. Focus on this non-story. No, she's not going to publish that. She's played by the rules. There's an investigation going on? Let's see where we get. But I'm confident that Angela has done nothing wrong here at all.

All right, let's talk about, I guess, what is the most important story today. It is six months since October the seventh. We spoke the day after, I think. On that day, you said that Israel must do what it must do, but within the bounds of international law. During the past six months, do you think that's what Israel has done?

Well, look, let me begin because Alad Qatsir, one of the hostages we now know is dead, and We saw protests in Israel overnight. It is important to remember that there are well over 100 hostages, some may no longer be alive in Gaza, and this story begun with that horrific event on October the seventh. But as we sit here six months later, I think it is important to reaffirm that a life lost is a life lost, whether that is a Muslim or a Jew. Far too many people have died, 33,000 now. Many women, many children. I think it is serious when we have I have senior judges who are on our Supreme Court who raise issues about the clear risk of breaches in international law. A former head of the MI6, Sir Alex Younger, says the same. Of course, I've said that I have serious concerns about a breach in international humanitarian law in regard to this. It's for that reason that I'm asking David Cameron to be very clear and to publish the legal advice, because this is serious for the British people, because it would mean that we are complicit in that action.

It's worth saying, of course, that there has been a letter published by another 600 lawyers who say exactly the reverse, and they say that Israel has had the right to do what it's done. You called this morning for three things: an immediate ceasefire, immediate release of hostages, an immediate and unimpedied aid to Gaza. Now, let's be generous and say that immediate means this week. What do you know that we don't know that would make any of those things, let alone all three, realistic?

Well, on the first, there are talks in Cairo as we speak, and of course, we now need an immediate ceasefire. The Labor Party has effectively been calling for a ceasefire now for over three months. This is huge It's hugely, hugely important that we see an end to this conflict.

You're saying these things are immediate. They've had talks before. A ceasefire- I suppose I'm wondering, what is the point of calling for these things?

Well, the The worst thing is-You've been calling for them, as you say, for several months. My judgment is if we get a ceasefire, more hostages will be released. That's the first thing. And more aid will get in to Gaza to alleviate the famine that's now taken over. It's It's important to assert that, Trevor, and that's why we do it. The whole international community wants that, but to get a ceasefire, both sides have to lay down their arms.

Okay, let's talk about something concrete. Your colleague, Anna Sawa, says, If there are breaches of international humanitarian law, there should not be sales of arms to Israel. Sadek Khan says that government's not publishing its legal advice. You can only draw one conclusion. I think the government should be pausing all sales of weapons to Israel. Do you agree with them?

I think their judgment is sound, and that's why I've said.

Oh, so you think that they should-Let me make the point. Sales of arms to Israel.

The criteria for the export and licensing of arms is effectively a criteria that is quasi legal. It requires the judgment of government lawyers, and that's why we've been very clear. The government published legal advice when our troops had to attack the Houthis in Yemen. They can publish that legal advice again, as they did in 2011 with the bombing of Libya, and they should do that so that people can take comfort.

Salwa and Khan are wrong to say that there should be a pause on arms sales now because that's what they're saying. They're not waiting for the government's legal advice.

I read what Sadek Khan had said. He was very clear that they should publish the legal advice. As the official opposition, we don't have access to that advice.

I'm quoting here. He says, They're not publishing legal advice. You can only draw one conclusion. The government should be pausing all sales of weapons to Israel. Do you agree with him or not?

I don't think it's a yes or no answer, Trevor, because I've said- Well, he's pretty clear.

He says yes.

Let me make the point. For the avoidance of doubt, I have doubts as we sit here.

Sorry, David, I'm just trying to get you to say, Is he right or is he wrong? He says, Pause. He's not waiting for the legal advice. Where are you on this? Do you agree with him or not?

Well, Sadiq may well be speaking as a lawyer. I also have experience as a lawyer, and I am saying that I, too, have doubts that we should be sending arms to Israel if they are in breach of international humanitarian law. I'm saying, publish the advice and we can know.

Okay, so you disagree with Salwa and Khan. No pause now. Let's look at your wider foreign policy. In January, in your Fabian Society speech, you outlined Labour's vision for foreign policy. Now, you accept at the heart of your defense strategy would be NATO, part of the creation of a Labor Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin. Donald Trump has pointed out that not every member of the Alliance pulls their weight. Have a look at this. Most of NATO's 32 members don't meet the required spending commitment. Trump's got a point about free riders, hasn't he?

He most definitely has a point, and successive American presidents have made the same point, and that is that we have to get serious about burden sharing and defense spending across Europe. Russia has spent 300% increase in its defense spending since Europe is 20%. That is not sufficient when all of us understand the real concerns that there are in the Indian Pacific. I would support that call that there has to be more burden sharing, there has to be more defense spending, and for all of those countries in the red, they have to do considerably better over this next period.

That's interesting that you've already found a point of identification with Mr. Trump. Let's deal with another point in your speech.

It's not just with Trump, it's with Clinton, it's with Obama, it's with Bush. Successive presidents have said this.

But given what you said about Trump in the past, this is interesting. But anyway, look, another thing you said in your speech is this, council culture will not feature We will shake hands with whoever we need to for peace. Do those hands include the Hamas leaders who ordered the atrocities on October the seventh?

No, they do not. But it is right to say that if you're serious about peace in the Middle East, it does mean sitting down with Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, states whose human rights records are not where we are currently here in the UK, because that is what will bring about peace. It's important that those countries are in a new contact group that can get us not only to peace, but to the two states where both Jews and Muslims on both sides can be in a country with safe borders.

If that is the case, what was the point of saying that we will shake hands with the shake the hands we need for peace if you're going to pick and choose? I mean, is this a matter of principle or is it just convenience? Trevor, after- John Major shook hands with With the provisional IRA. What I talked about in my Fabian speech was a progressive realism for the next Labor government.

Let's focus here on the realism. After the Second World War, Claire Matley appointed Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary. He asked him to go out into the world, and what he came back and said were there were serious dangers. Labor committed to NATO, and it committed to the atomic bomb. Those were the real threats then. There are real threats now, and it does mean that with Gulf States, with India, other countries who are emerging middle powers, we have to get serious about the interests of this country and the interests of the global rules-based order.

Okay, well, just very quick last point. You can say yes or no to this. You said you want to appoint a Middle East envoy. The very experienced Middle East envoy knocking about the place doesn't seem to have anything else to do. So, Tony Blair?

We want a Middle East peace envoy. I think- But you're fair. Tony has expertise, of course, across the globe. There are lots of people and lots of people we can draw on with experience of foreign policy. That is a judgment that Keir Starmer will make if we have the privilege of winning the next election.

All right. He'll be very disappointed. David Lammey, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you, Trevor.