Kit Malthouse
MP for North West Hampshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“We have heard time and time again that the situation that thousands of our constituents live with every single day is so horrific and appalling that even the best palliative care cannot alleviate their pain. I urge colleagues to consider what their vote may mean today.”
“I will not. Some of those Members had just a few months before been specifically rejected by the electorate and replaced in this House by others, and I am afraid that they cannot be trusted not to do the same thing again. I grant my right hon.”
“The Health and Social Care Committee of the House of Lords found that in territories that have assisted dying, palliative care generally improves, because people become less afraid of talking about death.”
“One of the most affecting people I have met over the last 11 years of campaigning on this issue is Warwick Jackson, who came to our party conference a couple of years ago. Warwick’s wife, Ann, was diagnosed with terminal peritoneal cancer. She basically knew that she was going to die a slow, suffocating death at the end.”
“I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s expertise in this matter, but, as he has already heard on the Floor of the House, it is perfectly possible for this House to suggest amendments, negotiate them with the promoters of the Bill, place them against the legislation in the House of Lords and then have them come back to this House for…”
“As co-sponsor of the Bill once again, I am acutely conscious that there is more at stake today than merely the fate of those who are facing their end, because the conduct of the other place means that our democracy is also on trial today.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,811 lines we hold for Kit Malthouse, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 97.
“Lady will look at what has been a customary carve-out for small businesses and consider whether that might be appropriate for specific measures.”
“I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In relation to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I understand that the right hon. Lady believes she is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, and we have to respect that. However, I hope she recognises that while these regulations will apply across the whole of the economy, the dynamics within small businesses and—in particular—microbusinesses are very different from those within large businesses. For example, if a business only has four employees and all four apply for flexible working, as the Bill provides for, it becomes not just a logistical and administrative nightmare but a personal nightmare for the person who is trying to run that business. I hope that as the Bill progresses, the right hon.”
“Alongside the many negatives relating to the Bill that my hon. Friend has laid out, does he recognise the strong possibility that, particularly in small and micro businesses, the legislation could inject quite significant resentment among the staff body itself? For example, just to amplify my previous point, if you have six members of staff and three of them apply for flexible working, that has an immediate impact on those who do not have flexible working. The ability of the business to offer flexible working to future workers is also reduced, which turns the whole thing into a massive negotiation between six or seven people. That could have a significant impact on morale and sense of fair play within businesses themselves.”
“The Labour manifesto contained a pledge to recognise Palestine. Subsequently, the Prime Minister has said that the Palestinians have an “undeniable right” to recognition, but something is holding him back. Could we please have a debate in Government time to examine the fact that all our Arab allies are saying that recognition is now a prerequisite for peace in the middle east, so that the House can vote to support the Prime Minister in taking this very significant step?”
“Q7. During the election campaign, the now Prime Minister made a hell of a lot of promises, some of which I am sure he will remember. Of particular importance to my constituents in Andover and North West Hampshire was a promise made on 18 June during a campaign visit to Basingstoke, when he made an unequivocal, unconditional commitment to rebuild our local hospital. Is that a promise on which we can rely?”
“Even if you care little for the tens of thousands of dead Arabs and the millions displaced; even if you could not give a damn for the children shot in the head or the burning hospital inmates in northern Gaza; if your only concern is the security of Israel, can the Minister see any argument why yet another massacre of Gazans will enhance that security in the future? If she cannot, when will the Government stop wringing their hands at this conflict and take positive, active steps to enforce international law and bring about a ceasefire?”
“The shadow Secretary of State makes a strong point about the sanctity of zero-rating VAT for education. I am concerned that children’s clothes, which are currently exempt from VAT, may be the next target. Notwithstanding the impact that the change to VAT will have on individual families, does he agree that private and prep schools—my constituency has five—are enormous employers of people involved in building maintenance, such as electricians and plumbers, and that the impact on the wider economy could well be profound?”
“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?”
“Yesterday, in the other place, the Transport Minister cast doubt on the continuation of travel concessions for pensioners, which has caused significant alarm in my constituency and others. Notwithstanding the discussion we are having today, could the Minister reassure us that travel concessions for pensioners will continue under a Labour Government?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has obviously decided that attack is the best form of defence, but the operation of the House will collapse if he declines to answer any questions about a very serious matter of public concern. Can we seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether he is conducting himself appropriately in the House? We are seeking transparency on a matter of probity, and he has a duty to answer the House, not least under the ministerial code.”
“Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s bluster, he must appreciate that, given Mr Milburn’s involvement in the private healthcare sector, his direct access to the Secretary of State may have conferred a competitive advantage. What does the Secretary of State say to those companies who compete with Mr Milburn’s companies about the access that he has had to the Secretary of State? How can we in the House be reassured about the kind of information that Mr Milburn has been able to access and what, if any, advantage that might have conferred upon him?”
“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.”
“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.”
“Knowingly misleading the House is a breach of the ministerial code, and I want your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what the appropriate course of action might be for the House. If we cannot rely on the financial information laid before us, but trust that it is accurate and wave it through, we are in a very difficult place indeed. I have notified the Chancellor of the Exchequer of my intention to raise this point of order. Obviously, once an independent adviser on the ministerial code is appointed, I can make representations to them, but in the meantime we are faced with a situation where either the estimates or the “Fixing the Foundations” document was knowingly wrong. In either case, the House may have been significantly misled, and I would be interested to hear your guidance on what we can do about it, Madam Deputy Speaker.”
“It explains that officials knew at the time that the estimates laid by the Chancellor were incorrect. I also have a letter from the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to a freedom of information request that I made prior to the recess. It explains that the OBR was shown the contents of that document two days before the estimates were laid before the House. Indeed, the OBR was given the “Fixing the Foundations” document in order to fact-check it on the day that the estimates were laid before the House of Commons. That raises a number of issues for the House, but the one that I am most concerned about is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has knowingly misled the House of Commons on the state of the public finances and her knowledge at the time.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 25 July, the main estimates were laid before the House and passed without debate or vote. On 29 July, the Chancellor came to the House and made a statement about the public finances, and laid a further document called “Fixing the Foundations”, which showed a wildly different picture of the public finances from that which had been presented to us just one working day before. Naturally, that raised concerns in the House. I and a number of Members questioned the Chancellor of Exchequer about it at the time. The fact that she was evasive in the debate and, frankly, look rattled raised further concerns. Today, a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has been leaked.”
“Will the Minister please confirm that where a rural community has taken the time and effort to produce a neighbourhood plan, that plan will be respected for its lifespan, notwithstanding new housing targets for the local planning authority?”
“That violent settler organisation was sanctioned by the previous Government earlier this year and was recently described as a bunch of terrorists by the head of the internal security service in Israel, yet our sanctions have seemingly had no impact on its behaviour and conduct or on the violent persecution that it is visiting upon innocent Palestinians in the west bank. Will the Secretary of State consider extending our sanctions to those who support and sustain that organisation and others, both within Israel and externally? If we are to be taken seriously on the international stage, whether in the case of Iran or these violent organisations, our measures have to have bite and effect. At the moment, seemingly, they do not.”
“I, too, met the mother of Hersh Goldberg-Polin in Jerusalem. It is a terrible tragedy that his name has joined the list of many thousands of innocents on both sides who have died in this conflict over the last few months. The Secretary of State will know that I have long been concerned about the situation in the west bank. I understand that the measures that he has taken today, and indeed sanctions generally, are not purely performative —he wants them to have some bite—so I wanted to ask about the case of the Hilltop Youth.”
“While the eyes of the world are rightly on the shocking, dystopian situation in Gaza, we should not forget the humanitarian situation in the west bank, where a largely defenceless population are being ever more persecuted and exposed to violence and are seeing their homes and land stolen. May we please have a comprehensive set of sanctions against violent settlers, the organisations that support them in their activities and those who are complicit, at a state level, in what they are doing?”
“Could the Secretary of State confirm two things? First, could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently? Secondly, could she confirm that protected landscape—what used to be called an areas of outstanding natural beauty, which comprise 80% of my constituency, but is now called national landscape—will still have significant protection within the planning system?”
“May I suggest, for the elucidation of Members, that she asks the permanent secretary at the Treasury, and the permanent secretaries of those Departments impacted by the decisions she has made today, to confirm to the House in writing that none of the information that should have been in the estimates was not included—if they were correct, was it included?—so we can see for ourselves whether she is covering up?”
“I congratulate you on your ascension, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady says she is keen on transparency. Can she confirm to the House that she had extensive access talks with senior civil servants in the Treasury in the run-up to the general election? It might be helpful, for transparency purposes, if she could lay the minutes of those meetings in the House of Commons for the rest of the House to understand. I am also concerned about the issue of misleading estimates being laid before the House.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made certain assertions about timing during her statement. However, we know from the media that the contents of the statement were briefed to The Guardian at 8.58 pm on Thursday, just after the estimates had been voted on. While I understand that the Chair is not responsible for the content of what is said at the Dispatch Box, the Chair is responsible for the integrity of documents that are laid before the House and on which we vote and rely. May I ask whether this is a matter for the Prime Minister in his governance of the ministerial code, or for the Commissioner for Standards in his upholding of standards in the House? Prima facie, in the absence of any evidence from the Chancellor, it looks as if we have all been misled.”
“During the election campaign the Prime Minister came to Basingstoke on a visit and specifically promised to replace Basingstoke hospital by 2030. Can we rely on that promise?”
“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?”
“Obviously, we need to report to our constituents that these things are less likely to occur in the future.”
“This was an extremely serious incident that I suspect may well be detectable in the next GDP figures that come out of the Office for National Statistics. I have two questions. The hon. Lady said that she was “pleased to say that Government services, and the online services that the Government provide, were and remain largely unaffected.” Could she tell us which services were affected, or is “largely” just a euphemism for “not affected at all”? Secondly, it is quite difficult for Members to get a handle on the full impact and spread of this contagion. Will she commit to laying before the House some kind of report detailing the sectors that were affected, how seriously they were affected—including Government systems—and whether and how there will be any resolution in the future?”
“The Chancellor and I sat on the Treasury Committee together many years ago, and she will know from our time together that economics is as much art as it is science. Given that she is effectively giving a veto over economic policy to the OBR through this Bill, she must recognise that we need to understand what the people in the OBR believe, what their theories of economics are and what principles they attach themselves to. What further scrutiny of the chair of the OBR and the people doing the forecast will be available to this House, given that effectively they will be co-Chancellor with her during the next few years?”
“Beyond compensation, one of the most important things that campaigners are looking for is consequences for those people who played a part in the creation of this scandal. The Prime Minister has made much about the integrity and accountability of his Government. Presumably that is retrospective. What consequence does the Minister envisage for those current serving Government Ministers who are deemed by the inquiry to have been negligent in their conduct in ministerial office in the past?”
“I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could provide some clarity, not just for Andover and for me, but for other Members who are similarly affected.”
“I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House say earlier that town centre regeneration remained a priority for the Government. May we please have an urgent statement from a Minister about the status of levelling-up fund grants? As the Leader of the House may know, towards the end of last year, Andover in my constituency was awarded £18.3 million to kick-start the regeneration of its town centre. Since then, a memorandum of understanding has been signed and some money has changed hands, and on that basis Test Valley borough council has made significant contractual and budgetary commitments, but there now appears to be an inexplicable delay in progress with the grant. We have to ensure that the money is spent by the early part of 2026.”
“The landscape is protected for a reason, and it is important that the Government respect those protections in planning law. I hope he can confirm that that will be the case.”
“I am conscious that we do not have a register of interests at the moment so, for the Secretary of State’s own protection, it might be helpful if he could tell the House whether he accepted any donations or otherwise during the election campaign that might be declarable. I want to press the Secretary of State further on protecting the landscape. Eighty per cent of my constituency is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, now rebranded as a national landscape. Can he reassure me that, in their planning decisions, he and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will respect the notion of protected landscapes? There is a series of solar farm applications in my constituency, some of which are either in or impinge on the area of outstanding natural beauty.”
“I just wanted to mark that special moment in my parliamentary career. I am grateful to her.”
“My second question is whether this deregulatory measure is likely to be replaced at some point with an even more regulatory system for some of the bits of equipment that we are removing from the scope of the legislation. I understand that there is something coming on vehicles, but on electric bicycles, for example, are we likely just to replace this measure with another set of regulations? Will another Committee be sitting in just a few months’ time to consider the Electric Bicycles (Telecommunications Safety) (No. 14) Regulations, or whatever it might be? If that is not the case, I offer the Minister my congratulations. I have sat on dozens of Delegated Legislation Committees over the last decade, nearly, and despite promises by the Government, this is the first I have known to consider something mildly deregulatory.”
“I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I have two questions and possibly some congratulations. My first question is whether we will see a more risk-based approach to this kind of regulation. I remember thinking when the PSTI Bill was going through the House in 2022 that if the Chinese really wanted to know what time I turn my central heating on, they would be pretty welcome to that information. Similarly, if I happen to have a connected oven and I have something in there for the evening, they can know about that too. I am actually not that bothered about them hearing my children vomiting in the middle of the night through the baby monitor, if that is what they want—they can listen to the screaming as much as I can. I hope the Minister will accept that a risk-based approach seems sensible in this area.”
“The Minister mentioned that the arm's length body would have 20 employees in the next couple of weeks, but can he reassure the House that, if Sir Robert Francis comes back in a few months and says, “In order to make quick decisions, I need more capacity and therefore more people”, there will be no quibbling on adequate resource in that organisation to fulfil the Minister’s rightly identified priority of getting the money out as quickly as possible to as many people as possible?”
“I commend the Minister for his statement. I know from our conversations how seriously he takes his moral duty on this issue. However, I also know from the work done at the Cabinet Office in the summer of 2022 in getting the first interim payments out that one of the most fraught areas of consideration will be wider eligibility, and that is not just a function of complexity but a function of capacity.”
“Over the past few months, Members from all parts of the House have questioned the Deputy Foreign Secretary on the notion of consequences, and we have heard that again today. He is an experienced Minister, so he knows that every equivocation, every hesitation and every set of diplomatic niceties has led us to this calamitous moment for the hostages, for the Palestinian people and for the interests of both peoples in the long term. On 7 April, the Foreign Secretary said that support for Israel was not unconditional. I shall ask the question in a different way: is there any red line? Is there anything the Israeli Government could do that would so appal this Government that they would feel the need to act? If so, what is it?”
“As the Minister will know, it is not only Governments and NGOs supporting Palestinians across Israel, the west bank and Gaza, but a lot of charities. I have been contacted by one such charity, ABCD, which operates a centre for disabled Palestinian children in the Nur Shams refugee camp. It tells me that its centre has been raided and destroyed not once, but several times, by the Israeli army—not by settlers. What more can the Government do to protect the facilities and personnel of British charities operating in the Palestinian territories?”
“If the law changes, as I hope it will, and assisted dying becomes available, in extremis, to me and others, people need to realise that it is not compulsory. You may not want it yourself, and you may not want it for your relatives, but please do not stop me having it.”
“The vast majority of British people love their parents and grandparents. They want the best for them, and they agonise when they die. If you go to the funerals or see them greeting each other at airport terminals, you will see the love there. That is not to say that there should not be safeguards, but we have safeguards in lots of other areas, and we should in this, too. Thirdly, the British people do not understand how people of a genuine religious faith can seek to impose their own morality on the rest of us. They have not done so on gay marriage. They did not do so on homosexuality, adultery, abortion or sex before marriage. Why on this issue should the British people be denied a choice, because of the—certainly legitimately held—religious convictions of others?”
“Of course, we also have business class, so it is even worse: if you have the money, you can have what the law denies to everybody else. It is an outrage, and it should change. Worse than that, many Members who would oppose me making the choice are quite happy for a doctor to do it for me, as we have already heard. They are quite happy for a doctor to give an extra squeeze on the morphine and take away my own agency, choice and rights about my life. The British people just do not understand how so many people can tolerate that. Secondly, the British people do not understand this view that the country is teeming with granny killers—that all of us are just waiting to bump off a wealthy relative so we can pocket the cash, like we are some kind of nation of Jeremy Bambers, intent on remunerating ourselves.”
“She regularly appeared in their front rooms, with her smiley, sunny demeanour, on a Saturday afternoon. Now that she is facing a horrible death and, with money, has decided to make the choice, the British people have obviously stood up and listened to the fact that she is supporting the campaign for a change in the law. The British people listened to such an extent that they now do not really understand why politicians tolerate or talk about three particular things. First, they do not understand how so many Members in this House can stand for the status quo when, as has already been stated, the status quo is appalling. We have hundreds of people taking their own lives in this country—thousands dying agonising, horrible deaths when they may wish to do something different.”
“I am grateful to you, Sir Robert. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life, so it should come as no surprise that I support the aspiration of the petition. Over the last 10 years of my involvement in the campaign in Parliament, I have become used to converts—very welcome converts—to the cause, but of course they almost always convert to the cause after they have been through the horrible experience of watching someone they love go through an awful, agonising and degrading death. When Esther Rantzen stepped forward and talked about the impact that her disease was having on her, as well as about her decisions for the future, it should come as no surprise that there was an outpouring of support from the British people, because for many people she was part of the family.”
“The Minister has talked about the medical profession and the various arguments for and against, but she is a distinguished member of the legal profession. One of the things that many people suffering with terminal diseases find so confusing is that the law as it stands is inconsistent and a mess. We have a situation where it is technically illegal to accompany somebody to Switzerland, but upon return, the Crown Prosecution Service has a policy of not prosecuting. We have the example of Mavis Eccleston, who agreed a suicide pact with her elderly husband, but survived. She was prosecuted in court, effectively for murder, but was acquitted, having gone through this dreadful experience. The current law is a mess, and I wondered if we could have the Minister’s professional view on that.”
“I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I appreciate the point that she is making. However, around the world, different countries have legislation to deal with abortion, and there are different time limits and different attitudes to it. For example, in Canada, it is technically legal to have an abortion up to the point of birth. The fact that other countries have different rules, or indeed different cultural nuances around this or any other issue, surely does not mean that we should not have and design our own framework for the same purpose.”
“They will get to seven days, plead that they cannot afford it and partially pay some of the costs to try to avoid their dog being put down. A game will be played. There needs to be firmer provision: either that, at seven days, partial payment is not good enough and the constable may dispose of the dog, or that an owner can agree immediately upon seizure of the dog that the dog may be disposed of. At the moment I cannot see in the Bill the possibility that, if my dog kills 27 sheep and is seized, I can say to the police there and then, “I don’t want the dog back. Do what you will with it,” at no cost to me.”
“The second issue that I want to raise is the retention of dogs by the police. When I was at City Hall, in a previous life, I started a campaign to drive out the plethora of dangerous dogs in London and improve the legislation. We got amendments then, but one thing that deterred the police from detaining dangerous dogs was the cost of holding them. Often, a dog would be detained, the trial would be awaited, the dog would be held—sometimes for months—the owner would not show up to the trial and the dog would be destroyed, but the police would be left with the cost. I understand that in this case there is a seven-day limit and I wonder whether we could consider that for amendment on Report. In my honest opinion, owners will partially pay.”