Qatar: Israeli Strike

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is quite right; Qatar has played a vital role in this conflict. I work closely with my Qatari counterparts, and not just on the urgent issues of the middle east but across a whole range of difficult conflicts. They play a vital role and are committed—as the Emir of Qatar told the Prime Minister this morning—to continuing to play that mediation role. I cannot see how such strikes help Qataris perform that role, but they are committed none the less to continuing it, and they have our full support.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The events of yesterday come as no surprise to those of us in the Chamber who have raised the issue of the Israeli Government’s crimes, committed with an air of complete impunity. It should now be crystal clear to the Minister, as it is to so many across the world, that the Israeli Government are not interested in the slightest in peace, or indeed in the fate of their hostages. In that light, I have two questions. First, what military and intelligence assistance will we provide to the Qataris to allow them to defend themselves against further attacks? Secondly, will the UK add its voice to the growing calls across the world for the formation of an international protection force to enter Gaza and enforce a peace?

[Mr Falconer]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are committed to Qatar’s security and defence—we have a close relationship with the Qataris on both, and we are of course in constant discussions with them about the importance of that collaboration. On his second point about a protective force—and here I will take advantage of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development when I was posted in South Sudan with a chapter VII UN peacekeeping force, which at that time had the most far-reaching mandate to protect civilians—we in this Chamber cannot pretend that UN peacekeeping forces are able to impose peace where there is none. There must be a ceasefire negotiation. In Juba I saw, as did the world, the horrifying ethnic cleansing that followed the inability of the UN mission to protect people. We must have a ceasefire. It is easy to get distracted with other alternatives, but the truth is that only a ceasefire will protect civilians in Gaza.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am afraid that this is another profoundly disappointing statement from the Foreign Secretary that is devoid of anything that is likely to bring a swift end to this conflict. While at home the police have been arresting vicars and grannies, and the Government have been hiring American spy planes to fly over Gaza, the Israelis, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, have intensified their campaign, aggression and the slaughter of innocents in that awful conflict. Everything he has said—all his condemnation—has come to nothing. In every statement he has made in this place when I have been here, he has stressed the importance of international humanitarian law. Why has he been so passive in defending the International Criminal Court in the face of another wave of American sanctions? What steps is he going to take to support that institution and the individuals who staff it in the face of those sanctions? What discussions has he had with the American Government to get them to reverse the sanctions?

[Mr Lammy]

It is just wrong to say that the Government have been passive in relation to the ICC. We fund the ICC and continue to support the ICC. I think I raised the ICC in my second meeting with Secretary of State Rubio. We work very closely with our Dutch colleagues in particular on the ICC. We have been crystal clear on the importance of international humanitarian law. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is the end of the statement on the middle east.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 April, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General raising a number of matters to do with domestic legal issues and our international obligations with regard to this conflict, but 132 days later, I have yet to receive a reply. What steps can I take to elicit the information that I need from the Foreign Secretary?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but the right hon. Member has put his concerns on the record and they have been heard by Members on the Front Bench, including the Foreign Secretary himself.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I remind my hon. Friend of the action that this Government have taken and how we have tried to lead in the international community on this issue. I also join her in condemning what we have seen in relation to civilians. Page 28 of “Conflict, Hunger and International Humanitarian Law: A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook” makes it clear that:

“Parties to armed conflict must take constant care in the conduct of military operations to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

Clearly, that is not happening.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Like others in this House, I am frankly astonished at the statement of the Foreign Secretary. At a time when we have got daily lynchings and expulsions on the west bank, and dozens being murdered as they beg for aid, I am just beyond words at his inaction—and, frankly, complicity by inaction. He said himself that there is a massive prison camp being constructed in the south of Gaza and he knows that leading genocide scholars from across the world are ringing the alarm bells, yet he has the temerity to show up in this House and wave his cheque book as if that is going to salve his conscience. Can he not see that his inaction and, frankly, cowardice are making this country irrelevant? Can he also not see the personal risk to him, given our international obligations—that he may end up at The Hague because of his inaction? Finally, frankly, I make an appeal to Labour Back Benchers: we cannot get your leadership to change their minds; only you can, if you organise and insist on change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I bring in the Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that we have other business to proceed with tonight, so please keep questions and answers short.

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the fury that the right hon. Gentleman feels, but I have to tell him—

[Kit Malthouse]

Why don’t you feel it?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to tell him that it demeans his argument when he personalises it in the way that he does. It is unbecoming, and not something the House expects, particularly of its more senior Members.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes]

It is important to note that the International Court of Justice has indeed given the advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful. I hope the Minister will refer to that in his remarks.

There have long been concerns that the illegal settler movement has aligned with Israeli state policy goals that could not be openly pursued due to international scrutiny. Under the current Israeli Government, the open support for and increase in state-sanctioned illegal settlements give the perception of a political strategy that undermines a two-state solution and risks de facto annexation of the west bank.

This debate is not only about illegal settlements, however; it is also about the human cost of the forced displacement of Palestinians. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 905 people, including 181 children, have been killed in the west bank, and a further 7,370 people have been injured. The UN Human Rights Office has reported rising settler violence, forced displacements and arbitrary detention against Palestinians. Over the last couple of years, 6,400 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and a further 2,200 have been uprooted because of settler violence and access limitations. That does not include the approximately 40,000 Palestinians displaced from three refugee camps in the northern west bank because of increased Israeli militarised operations there since January.

That is deeply troubling. Those are not just numbers, but daily lived injustices that undermine the prospects for peace and must be addressed with the seriousness they deserve. I continue to believe that the UK should use its voice on the international stage to call for accountability and the protection of civilians in all parts of the occupied territories. I hope the Minister can address that today.

Forced displacement in the west bank not just strips Palestinians of their homes, but involves the destruction of vital public services. A recent report from a coalition including UNICEF and Save the Children found that 84 schools across the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are currently subject to pending demolition orders issued by the Israeli authorities. That puts the right to education at risk for some 12,655 students, of whom more than half are girls. In parallel, the World Health Organisation reported more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities, leading to numerous deaths and injuries, in just under a year after the 7 October 2023 attacks.

All children have the right to safely access education and all people have the right to access medical care as enshrined in international and humanitarian law. The attacks on or destruction of those services sends a message that neither health nor the prospects of opportunity are safe under occupation. That is best encapsulated by a quote shared with me by Save the Children. Marah, an eight-year-old girl who lives in the Jenin refugee camp in the west bank, says:

“We are scared…There’s a lot of mud, bullets, and they shoot tear gas. Our school isn’t safe. It’s close to the army…I was sitting here, this window shook, and the glass fell. Every day, there is the sound of drones. We’ve kind of gotten used to it a little.”

What can be done? In recent months, the UK Government have taken action. I welcome the recent sanctions on individual outposts, settlements and now two far-right Israeli Ministers in an effort by the UK Government to help to secure the west bank for Palestinians and not illegal settlements, but those settlements are now state sanctioned, state funded and state protected. We must go further. There must be a ban on the import of goods to the UK from illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those settlements remain a significant obstacle to peace—one that the UK must not be responsible for supporting.

Ultimately, we need to see the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the final negotiation towards the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state, including a rebuilt Gaza, in peaceful co-existence with a democratic Israel. I ask the Minister what more the UK Government can do to prevent the west bank from becoming like Gaza, given the escalating violence, increased military operations and forced displacement of Palestinians there in recent months.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s list something that the Government could do. In the main Chamber we are busy proscribing two Russian supremacist organisations. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Government to proscribe settler organisations who, as President Biden said, are perpetrating terrorism upon a defenceless Palestinian people?

[Martin Rhodes]

I certainly think that the Government should look at that. There is obviously a process to go through in terms of proscribing, but it is something that should be looked at.

With regard to the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the UK Government must redouble their efforts to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement and fuel. The UN co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored and a permanent ceasefire agreed. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale, with meaningful assistance.

Finally, for there to be a peaceful two-state solution between a safe and democratic Israel and a safe, democratic and viable Palestinian state, there must be a people and a land called Palestine left to recognise. As the UK, let us work to ensure that.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday. I spoke to him briefly again this morning, and he reassured me that the military targets and the nuclear facility remain their objective and their focus at this time.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Away from the headlines, as the Foreign Secretary said, hundreds of Gazans have been losing their lives. Let us be clear about what is happening. As tens of thousands of people walk miles daily to beg for food from American mercenaries, they are being shot at random in the street. I think we in this House have moved beyond asking the Foreign Secretary actually to lift a finger and beyond mouthing the words do anything about this, but I have a wider question. Does he envisage the UK playing any part in some sort of consequence in the future for these outright murders?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on these issues and acknowledge the consistency with which he has pressed them from the Back Benches. I reassure him that in the White House last week we did not just discuss the situation in Israel and Iran; I also discussed the situation in Gaza, and our discussion is about the chances of a ceasefire. The prospects for that ceasefire are currently with Hamas, deep in their system and in their tunnels, but I remain hopeful that we will get a breakthrough in the coming days and weeks and that the suffering that we are seeing will be alleviated.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As this conflict escalates, our message to both Israel and Iran is very clear: de-escalation and restraint.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

All our thoughts are of course with the British citizens caught up in this horrible and alarming exchange of ordnance. The Foreign Secretary said he was keeping his eye on Gaza, but I am not quite sure what that means. It is certainly the case that the eye of the world has been drawn to the footage that has emerged as the missiles have flown—footage of young children shot and bleeding out their lives in the sands of Gaza. As he said, 50 people were hospitalised over the weekend or shot dead while begging for food. Just this morning, 38 people were killed while queuing for food or attempting to obtain food from the new American-sponsored distribution system. What comfort should all the bereaved families in Gaza take from the fact that he is keeping his eye on this situation?

[Mr Lammy]

Today in my office I was with a hostage family. A wonderful woman who lost her husband was there with her daughter asking me to keep Gaza at the forefront of my mind and to raise it in the Chamber this afternoon. That is why there was an extensive part of my speech on it. I have spoken to all partners in the region, and I will very shortly speak again to Prime Minister Mustafa. We are absolutely clear that aid needs to get in, that hostages need to get out, and that we want to see a ceasefire. I will continue to talk and work particularly with our American partners and our partners in Qatar to bring about that ceasefire.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will not speculate too far on hypotheticals, but I am, of course, a British Minister; I take decisions on behalf of the British Government. We will act alone where we have to, but we act whenever we can with our friends and allies, as that is the way we have the greatest impact.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The Minister has laid out with some passion the dystopian hell that Gaza has become and the unfolding and ongoing disaster in the west bank. Why, then, as many Members have asked, has he done the absolute bare minimum? We all know in this House, after the previous rounds of sanctions, that there will be absolutely no difference on the ground for the Palestinians. I said last week—I am sorry to be cynical about it—that I thought the House was being played. My confident prediction now, given this announcement, is that recognition, which was being advertised for the conference next week, is off the table. Can the Minister tell me that I am wrong?

[Mr Falconer]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has made these points with some force for the past year, but I would caution him against being quite as cynical as he is. We are doing everything we can. We recognise that what we have announced today will not be a remedy to the situation we find ourselves in, as I have just said to one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). However, I encourage the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) not to cast such cynicism around the Government’s motives. This Government care deeply about what is happening in Gaza. We are so incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us and everyone on the Benches behind me. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he has no monopoly on the morality of the situation.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves. I want to reassure the House that the powers of the Foreign Office are not set by our views on an advisory opinion, which is just that: advisory. We abide by international law in all that we do and our options are not constrained by the fact that we have not yet pronounced a view on the advisory opinion.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) indicated, we are all frankly getting a bit fed up with the theatrics in this Chamber, and if I am honest with the Minister, it feels like the whole House is being played. He shows up and mouths the words, full of condemnation and saying he is appalled, and very occasionally the Government leak out just enough sanctions in order, frankly—I am afraid to say this, colleagues—to keep the Labour Benches from open revolt.

And yet, since the Minister last appeared here, as others have mentioned, 22 new settlements have been announced, and the Israeli Government have replaced the United Nations Relief and Works Agency distribution system with a shooting gallery—an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at. If the situation were reversed, we would now, quite rightly, be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force, so here is my question: what is the difference?

[Mr Falconer]

I hope the right hon. Member will forgive me; he talks of theatrics, whereby I come to the House and provide an update and he delivers a speech saying that we should do more. I remind him and the House that the Labour Government have a profoundly different position towards these issues than the Conservative Government before us. We have taken a series of steps, most recently on 20 May—

[Kit Malthouse]

Not a single thing has changed—nothing! They are ignoring you now. I am sorry, but they are killing dozens every day—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Minister.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It is because of those very same issues, and my concern that the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to a civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching international humanitarian law, that I suspended arms back in September. I want us to get back to a ceasefire; I want us to get back to diplomacy. There cannot be a role for Hamas, but there can never be a role for using food as a tool of war.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The anger and the outrage of the Foreign Secretary is appreciated by us all, and I sense that it is genuine, but he knows as well as I do that the Israelis could not give a damn about what he says in this Chamber or indeed about the statement. As he will know, since that statement was issued, dozens of Palestinians have been killed and there have been voices of defiance from the Israeli Government.

The statement mentions the taking of concrete action. I am not quite sure what the trigger for that is. Many of us in this Chamber have been trying to spur the Government into action over the past few months. We have tried anger and outrage and got nowhere, and we have tried shaming Ministers into action and got nowhere, so maybe we need to beg. Do those on the Treasury Bench need us to beg for the lives of those Palestinian children before they will trigger that concrete action, whatever it might be? I am urging the Foreign Secretary—I am begging him—to pluck up all his moral authority and courage, stand up in Government against the blockage in Downing Street, and please try to save those children’s lives as soon as possible.

[Mr Lammy]

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I take issue with the way he began his question. I think it is wrong to characterise the whole of Israel in the way he did. It is not that the Israelis could not give a fig about what is said from this Front Bench—that is not the case. Our issue today, and the reason I have taken the decisions I have about a new free trade agreement, a review of the road map and the announcement of further sanctions, is the position of the Netanyahu Government and the language from those Ministers. That is why I was so shocked that the Opposition Front Benchers could not stand up and find their own moral authority. I am proud of what we have done since coming into government, right from the beginning. I want to see an end to this war, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Our diplomats are doing all they can to try to use our lever to bring this war to an end.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members will be aware that there are still many who wish to contribute to the debate. May I ask that contributions are kept to five minutes?

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for putting me on the Bill Committee where, in my view, we did some excellent work. Although we have heard an awful lot of claims about the process, I think anybody objective who reads the Bill that is now being reported to the House will recognise that it is a strong piece of work that is measured and seeks to strike a balance in a difficult area of complexity, humanity, compassion and morality.

Before I discuss some of the amendments, I want to bring the House back to what we are trying to deal with: a set of people who have been told that their struggle with disease is over, that they are heading towards an inevitable death and that there is nothing more that medical science can do for them. What we are trying to do is to give them the chance to face death on their own terms. That is the simple mission that the House has been set.

The second thing I want Members to contemplate as they look at this slew of amendments is that although it is easy to look at each amendment individually and see its merits or demerits, we must bear in mind the machine we are building as a whole, and the fact that we are putting those people through this process at a time when they are facing the end of that struggle. They are thinking about what the nature of their death will be like and they are talking to their friends and family, putting their affairs in order, and being concerned about when that awful day is going to come. We have to have some compassion in the process as well as compassion in the purpose.

When Members consider some of the amendments I will highlight, I ask them please to keep in mind that we will have to put these people through a possible two-month process at a moment when their time is severely limited, very often to less than six months. For example, new clause 7 and amendment 50, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), would restrict the number of patients that doctors can deal with in any 12-month period. That will severely restrict access and may mean that patients who are partway through the process have to change suddenly because their doctor is time limited, pushing them out, notwithstanding the multiple safeguards we already have in the process.



My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) gave an interesting speech about amendment 47. Again, in that amendment, he would be creating another step, another delay and another set of problems for the dying person to overcome or issues for them to address. In his amendment—I am sure he is a much better lawyer than me—I found it odd that he would effectively be creating an inexhaustive list of individuals who could be called upon in any circumstances who might be “properly interested” in the welfare of that individual. To me, the person who should be the most interested in their future is the person themselves. Any step we take that cuts across their privacy, their autonomy and the alacrity with which they can seek this solution to their impending or perceived agony seems a step too far. I do not understand how, practically, the commission is supposed to ascertain who those individuals are—are they neighbours, friends or just family? What is the definition of family? We need to put that contemplation and how they want to handle their death squarely in the hands of the dying person.

[Jess Asato]

The right hon. Member mentioned that the person is autonomous and should be protected from inquiries about them, but what if they are not autonomous because they are being coercively controlled by a partner? What if that partner has prevented them from reaching out to their family to let them know that they are going to take an assisted death? Would it not be a great safeguard to ensure that the panel and all the doctors around them had ascertained that the family had been told?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it was a compelling point made in Committee and is certainly one that we recognise. That is why the amendments on training that she tabled in Committee were adopted—specifically to ensure that everybody involved in the process is sensitised to detecting those issues and to make clear that any doctor in the process, and indeed the panel, might want to know why family are not being informed. That is specifically why a social worker was put on the panel: to understand the psychosocial environment in which the person is taking that decision. Fundamentally, in the end, if I am facing my death in a matter of weeks and decide in my capacity that I do not want to inform my family, that is my choice. That is my decision. I may have to explain my reasons to the doctors, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. On that point, I remind Members that we are very short of time.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be swift.

That is my choice, and this Bill is rooted in the need to give autonomy to those facing death who have capacity. We should take care to tread carefully upon that right.

On the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), new clause 16 says that somebody cannot be “substantially motivated” by certain considerations. I do not really understand what “substantially motivated” is meant to mean. To me, this misunderstands the complexity of what it must be like to be told that you are dying. The things that might run through your head—the affairs you might have to deal with, the news you have to break to your family, the impact it will have on your small children—form a cocktail of motivations. But the one thing I have learned over the last 10 years from campaigning for and spending lots of time with dying and bereaved people is that towards the end of their life, they have absolute clarity about what they want, because it becomes clear to them towards the end what their death will be like. At the very least, they want to have this card in their back pocket to play if they require it. Remember: these are people who are facing death, who are struggling with death, and we have to give them the power to advance over it.

[Melanie Ward]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

Sorry, but I am conscious of time.

Finally, amendment (a) to new clause 10, which we might divide on this afternoon, is difficult. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As sponsors of the Bill, we are clear that there should be a conscientious objection clause to allow individuals to opt out, and that is strengthened by new clause 10. But allowing an employer—any employer—to say that any employee in their employment cannot participate if that is what they decide seems to me a step too far, and it could prove to have unintended consequences. First, the board of every healthcare trust in the country will become a battle for control between those who oppose and those who do not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, people may suddenly find that they have to uproot themselves, after years of living in a care home, and relocate to get the kind of death that they want. In effect, the amendment prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying. As I said on Second Reading, in my view, as they face their end, we should prioritise the rights of the dying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government’s position on the relevant clause is that the panel has to be satisfied that the correct steps have been taken, and there is not evidence of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. Our view is that the intended effect is already catered for in clause 15.

Amendment 38 would exclude from being provided with assistance a person who is not already terminally ill, as defined under the Bill. The reference to “standard medical treatment” is unclear. This could cause further uncertainty around eligibility, given that treatment could be individually tailored to each patient and their needs.

Amendment 81 would remove the requirement that any references to capacity in the Bill are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. That would effectively remove the definition of capacity in the Bill. In the absence of a new definition, the Mental Capacity Act may continue to apply by default. That would, of course, diverge from the familiar concepts in the Mental Capacity Act, which could create confusion for practitioners.

The stated intention of amendment 14 is to exclude a person who would not otherwise meet the definition of “terminally ill” if the person meets that definition solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking. Our assessment is that the amendment risks introducing uncertainty over a person’s eligibility for assistance under the Bill. However, the substantive question is a policy choice for Parliament. Recognising the intent of the amendment, we do not believe that it would render the Bill unworkable.

Once again, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that these observations have helped them in their consideration of the amendments that have been tabled.

[Kit Malthouse]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a delay in the No Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and inspect?