Middle East
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree that flooding aid is the essential next step, and I took the opportunity to have a discussion with Tom Fletcher yesterday about what more we could do in that regard.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Setting aside the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where conditions have been placed upon the cessation of the annihilation of an entire people and the strange delineation between hostages on one side and prisoners held in administrative detention on the other, we should all of course, as the Prime Minister said, express profound relief at the end of the killing, not least of one child every 45 minutes for two years.
Is not the lesson of the last two years that when the UK finally moves on from empty rhetoric to take concrete action, there is movement in the parties to a conflict like this, and that therefore we should be thinking about what more concrete action we can take, in particular in three areas? First, can we please have concrete steps to deter Israeli territorial ambition in the west bank, including a ban on settlement goods, now that we have officially recognised that territory? Secondly, could we have a reassertion of UK support for international law and the institutions that support it? In particular, could the Prime Minister use his relationship with President Trump to have the sanctions on individuals at the UN and the International Criminal Court lifted? Finally, if we are to support or participate in an international stabilisation force, could we insist that it also covers areas B and C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where the Israel Defence Forces too often act as cover for incidents of Israeli terrorism?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will take each of the three parts in turn. Certainly, on the west bank, we have taken action, as he knows, and we will continue to look at what further action we can take where we can with other countries. It is important, as we focus on Gaza, that we do not forget the situation in the west bank, as he rightly knows.
On international law, yes of course we are committed to international law and proud to uphold it, and I am pleased to hear him say so. That was once the proud position of his party as well. Sadly, that is no longer the case. On the stabilisation force, the terms of reference are still being drawn up. There is a United Nations Security Council resolution on the establishment of the force, or I hope there will be, but the wider terms of reference are not yet agreed. I will bear in mind what he has said.
G7 and NATO Summits
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. She has campaigned hard on this. It is central that if there is to be a ceasefire and a lasting peace in Ukraine—and I hope that there is—it must involve the return of the children. We have discussed that many times, and will continue to do so.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that; it is obviously of huge importance to his constituents and he is right to do so. As he knows, we are reviewing the programme. The programme that the last Government put in place for 40 new hospitals had a number of flaws: they were not all hospitals, they were not new, and they were not funded, so we are reviewing it. He is right to raise this matter, and I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the development in his constituency. It will matter to his constituents who are listening to this, and it is important that they know where the failure lay.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to emphasise the impact that this has on children in particular. We have special responsibilities to children in any conflict. The first step to protecting children is to create the conditions for a ceasefire and de-escalate, which is why, working with our allies, we are spending so much time on that de-escalation and finding a route to a ceasefire.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In February I stood in the wreckage of some of the kibbutzim where the atrocities took place on 7 October. I was struck by the families we met and their desire for peace rather than revenge. Since then, I am afraid to say that I have heard Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box mouth the words of peace and de-escalation, yet the situation has got worse and worse. How many more people will have to die before we realise that talking is not enough, and we have to take action with our partners to compel a ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
What happens at the Dispatch Box is the reporting back of the action we are taking elsewhere—that is under this Government and under the last Government—and when not at the Dispatch Box, we are working with our allies to bring about a ceasefire. I accept it is difficult; I accept it has not yet happened. I refuse to give up on the idea that, through diplomacy, we can reach that de-escalation and ceasefire. We will continue to work with our allies to do so. What we have tried to do, particularly in recent weeks, is co-ordinate with our allies so we speak and take action in one co-ordinated way. That, for me, is more powerful than each nation taking action separately.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was really hard to read the part of the report that deals with the indifference and disrespect after the tragedy. I would have thought that after such a tragedy, whatever the failures that went before, these people would at the very least be treated with the utmost respect, yet the same disregard and lack of basic respect and dignity continued. That is part of what this report is about.
It is important that there are plans in place for disabled people, and we have taken that forward for people with disabilities who are housed in circumstances in which they clearly need an evacuation plan. Of course we will work on this with local authorities and all relevant authorities.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the things I learned from my interactions with the bereaved, survivors and Grenfell United during my time as Housing Minister is that their pain was compounded by their frustration at the pace of change, even some years after the fire. I shared their frustration as we tried to make progress on building safety issues. One of the things that sharpened our minds and made the Government machine jump to it was the prospect of external scrutiny. I heard the Prime Minister say that he wants to return annually to update the House on progress. I know he will do his best, but I am afraid that I do not think that will give the Government machine the kind of impetus required. Will he recommend to whoever is elected Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that they establish a Sub-Committee to look at progress on the report’s recommendations? If not, will he support the establishment of a cross-party Committee of the House to drive through these changes and to monitor Government progress? Although an annual debate is welcome, I do not think it will give the sense of urgency required to address these issues swiftly.
The Prime Minister
The question of external scrutiny is really important, and we will, of course, report annually. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the report has a recommendation on scrutiny that we want to look at carefully and discuss with the community, which has strong views on this. Obviously, we will take into account the views of Members on both sides of the House, including on whether this is something a Select Committee should look at. I am not sure it is my role to tell a Select Committee what to look at, but I agree that the question of external scrutiny and accountability is really important. We have to make sure that the most robust scrutiny is in place.
NATO and European Political Community Meetings
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Keir Starmer(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Our armed forces provide huge resource to NATO, particularly in Europe, and across our armed forces we are fully committed in almost every respect to NATO. There is huge room for further such work, building on what is clearly working already.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister has given us fine words about the importance of our membership of international institutions, particularly international courts, and I agree with him—it is profoundly in our national interest that we are a member of these organisations—but he will know as well as I that those courts are only as good as the action and consequence that flow from their judgments. Without action and consequence, their judgments just become hot air. In relation to Israel-Gaza, and in particular the occupation of the west bank, can he please assure us that he is considering hard consequences for the very obvious flagrant breach of international law that is taking place daily in that part of the world?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for that question, because I believe in international law and I think it is very important that we keep to our commitments on international law. We are known for that as a nation, and it matters to the world. In relation to the courts, I respect their independence. Obviously, we will have robust discussion about particular actions, judgments that they might publish, and decisions that they come to, but for those who believe in international law, it is important to be equally clear that we support the independence of the courts. Without that anchor, we do not have the framework that is so important to us, in terms of enforcing international law.