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?

Gaza: UK Assessment

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is forceful advocate on these questions. She points to failure, and I recognise that failure. So many days and months on, the people of Gaza and the west bank, and of course the hostages, are in the most distressing circumstances possible. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on sanctions, as she would expect, but I can assure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course.

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

It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the slaughter in Gaza, the brutality and cruelty on the west bank, and starvation as a policy. The crimes come daily, such as the recent killing of Mohammed Bardawil, one of only three key eyewitnesses to the slaughter of rescue workers just a few weeks ago, whose bodies were buried in shallow graves. It is clear to everybody that crimes are being committed daily.

As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK is a party to international agreements that provide a positive obligation to act to prevent genocide and torture and protect the rights of others. We have an obligation, as a member of the United Nations Security Council and a state party to the Geneva conventions, to promote peace and security. What advice has the Minister taken on the liability that will attach to him as a decision maker? Have the Government received advice on whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, any senior officials or previous Ministers may be exposed when the reckoning comes?

[Mr Falconer]

As Members would expect, I will not discuss internal legal advice in the Chamber, whether it applies to me or other Ministers. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, right across Government, we understand the gravity of the situation and the weight that falls on us to ensure changes to this diabolical trajectory. We will continue to use our role in the Security Council, the G7 and the E3, as we did yesterday, and that action will not stop.

Middle East Update

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question—I know of his long personal commitment to those so badly affected by this conflict. I join him in condemnation of the Houthi attack. The House should be under no illusions about the nature of the Houthis. They are no friend to the Palestinians, and their repeated strikes against international shipping—indeed, against practically any flagged vessel that crosses through the Red sea—are a threat to global peace and security, and to international trade. Their actions targeting civilian aviation do nothing for the Palestinian people.

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

After 18 months of the diplomacy that the Minister referred to, it is clear that Israel has not significantly complied once. After watching children being shot in the streets, medics and hospitals consistently targeted, British citizens and rescue workers murdered and their bodies concealed, red lines such as Rafah reduced to rubble, and the hostages still in captivity, we now learn from an Israeli Government Minister that Gaza is to be “entirely destroyed”. We are watching the livestreamed starvation of an entire people. The Minister talked about his anguish, which I know is genuine, but can he not see what the majority of the House can see, which is that he is facing a catastrophic failure of Government policy, for which the Palestinians, the Israelis and the rest of us may well pay a heavy price for many years to come? He is an intelligent man. Can he not see the moral and tactical case for a change in strategy that might bring about peace?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman talks powerfully, and the scenes in Gaza are visible to us all. He asks questions about tactics and strategy, and the right strategy must be over the next two weeks for Special Envoy Witkoff’s efforts to see success. We need to see a ceasefire restored. Those who are advocating for that political process need our full support, and that is where the efforts of the Government are focused.

Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is a dignified and doughty tribune in this place. I know that all Members of this House will continue to speak without fear or favour from these Benches, and I would encourage them to do so. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) referenced our travel advice, which sets out some of the risks, and I encourage Members of Parliament who are considering visits and wish to discuss that with the Foreign Office to do so.

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

This is obviously a deeply alarming development, coming as it does off the back of proposed financial penalties for foreign non-governmental organisations that are operational in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which also bear witness to what is going on there. Will the Minister enlighten us about two things? First, it would be helpful for parliamentarians if, in his discussions with the Israeli Government, he could ask them for a comprehensive list of MPs who will not be permitted to travel to Israel from here on in, so that we get a sense of the scale of their objection to what we say in this House. Secondly, will the Government still be entertaining high-level military delegations from Israel on their premises?

[Mr Falconer]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, we will keep such matters under review on a case-by-case basis. On the question of which MPs are now welcome to travel to Israel, I will have to revert to this House. To our knowledge, this is the first ever such incident. Colleagues from across the House with a whole range of views on the conflict in Israel and Gaza have travelled there, so we were dismayed to see the weekend’s events.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I condemn categorically the development of settlements that are illegal under international law. Settlements do not offer security to Israel or to Palestinians. I also condemn calls to annex the west bank, which would lead only to violence and jeopardise prospects for a Palestinian state. I am clear with Israeli counterparts that settlement expansion must stop. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure prospects for a Palestinian state.

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

We have heard Secretary of State after Secretary of State condemn the increase in settlements and settler violence in the west bank over the last 30 or 40 years and it has made not the slightest bit of difference to their expansion. When will the Foreign Secretary accept that the only thing that the Israelis will respond to—we should not forget that these settlements are sponsored by the Israeli state—is action? When can we expect more sanctions, particularly on violent settlers and their organisations? When can we expect a full trade ban on settlement produce? In particular, will the Secretary of State consider proscribing those settler organisations that are perpetrating terrorism on an innocent Palestinian population?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that there is a cross-party position, and successive Ministers of both political parties have condemned expansion and condemned violence. We continue to work with partners across Europe and beyond on these issues. I do not say that it is easy. He will know that I announced sanctions back in October, and we continue to keep these issues under review, but the culture of impunity for those engaged in violence is intolerable. I remember just a few months ago sitting with Bedouins who had experienced that violence and were being subjected to that expansion—it is horrendous. That is why in both the UN and our dialogue with the Israeli Government we are clear that that harms the prospects of peace and security for Israel; it does not further its ambitions.

Conflict in Gaza

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The conflict has gone on for 526 painful days. I recognise the strength of feeling after more than 49,000 people have been killed in Gaza—a staggering number of people. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on any further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we keen those issues under close review.

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

It has been estimated that in the opening salvos of this appalling aggression, the Israelis killed 80 Palestinian children in the space of 51 minutes. There have been reports of children going through amputations without anaesthetics because of the blockade, and that leaflets were dropped across Gaza last night threatening extermination. Surely even for the Government, the Israelis have now crossed a monstrous red line. The Foreign Secretary talks about “equivalence”. I am assuming that he believes that the Palestinian civilians and their lives are equivalent to the lives of Israeli citizens, and are also equivalent to the lives of Ukrainian citizens. This morning, Ministers were on the airwaves offering British troops to keep the peace between Ukraine and Russia. What is it about the Palestinian people that means they are less deserving of that kind of protection?

[Mr Lammy]

A whole generation of Gazans are growing up in the most unbearable conditions, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been a champion for those children—children who we saw rummaging around in the rubble; children who are now orphaned; and the many thousands of children in Gaza who are out of school. It is absolutely right that he brings their plight to the attention of the House. But the way forward that we were shown back at the beginning of January was through a ceasefire, negotiations to get into phases 2 and 3 of that ceasefire, and a horizon for a two-state solution. That is what I will continue to fight for.

Gaza

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that, as a proscribed terror organisation, Hamas have certainly displayed some very frightening characteristics that we would expect of a terrorist organisation. There was also the macabre pantomime that we saw in the past couple of weeks during the release of hostages—that was truly shocking. I thank him for his question. The exact detail on the next stage of the negotiation is to be defined by the two parties, but we play a real role both with the ally, which is Israel, but also working with Egypt, Qatar and the wider region. That is why our Minister right now is in the region, making the point that we want to be involved, pushing for a peaceful solution and to see that day when terrorism is not extant and the two communities can live side by side in peace.

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

I was going to ask what we would do if the Israelis refused to let in aid, or to turn on the water and power, but I think we all know that basically the answer is nothing. Instead, let me ask this. The Minister rightly mentioned the macabre display around the return of the hostages and the condition of those hostages, and she is right. I think she said that she has taken that up with interlocutors. Why has not she mentioned the return of the Palestinian non-combatants? Why has not she mentioned their condition when they are returned, often emaciated and showing signs of torture? Why has she not mentioned the number of senior medics who have been detained without charge and then died in mysterious circumstances in Israeli detention? Apparently there is some kind of investigation, but it never comes to a conclusion. Is she surprised that people have become cynical about British conduct in this conflict, when it seems that we are only concerned about the welfare of one side?

[Catherine West]

With all due respect, I think that across this House we have had a very balanced approach to the suffering of all the communities in the region. The right hon. Member is right to mention the terrible suffering of those who have experienced arbitrary detention or alleged torture by various law enforcement agencies. He is also right to include that in what needs to be the next step of the negotiation—the hostages on the one side, but those being released from prison on the other. I remind him that there are concerns that some people who might have been released should not have been. All of that has to be taken in the round and balanced. I encourage balance and understanding about the suffering of both sides of the community and the desire for security in the words that we use in the House.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? We have worked together over many years. Her constituency, in so many ways, is not dissimilar from mine, and I know how heart-rending this has been for her constituents. I also know the grace, the manner and the fortitude with which she has represented their interests very strongly within the Labour movement.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to centre the west bank, the expansion and the violence that undermines the two-state solution. It was very important for me to be able to discuss these issues with President Abbas. One hugely important role that the UK Government play is in relation to reform and supporting the Palestinian Authority. That work must continue. We stand by the 1967 borders that we think can achieve the two-state solution that is required. We worry about the security situation in the west bank. We worry, too, about the arms and the supplies that are coming in from malign forces, particularly from Iran and some neighbouring states. But we are also in an intense dialogue with the Israeli Government about what we think are breaches of international law in relation to how the area is properly secured and policed. We certainly do not want to see the language, the rhetoric or the behaviour that undermine the possibility of the two-state solution.

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

The return of hostages and the end of daily massacres of civilians is profoundly to be welcomed. While the Foreign Secretary has attributed much of the work to diplomats, it is obvious that, whatever we think about him, the critical intervention, by all reports, has been that of President-elect Trump. Although he has issued public threats to Hamas, he has quite obviously—again by all reports—outlined a series of consequences and accountabilities to the Israeli Government. Therefore, as we look towards the worsening situation in the west bank, can we find a lesson here for British foreign policy. Talking, as many of us in this House have urged over the past 14 months, does not work. Unless it is followed up with sure and certain consequence and accountability—whether that is bilateral or indeed through international institutions—there will be no movement.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman follows these issues very closely, and has sometimes been a lone voice on his own side. He will know that the Labour Government have had to take very difficult bilateral decisions because of our concerns about breaches of international humanitarian law. My own reflections are that, in some ways, this has been the most challenging of political environments for this conflict, partly because there was an election campaign in the United States for much of 2024. Had we been able to achieve a more bipartisan approach sooner, we might have seen the pressure that was necessary to bring both parties to the deal that we have finally reached. None the less, I am very pleased that the President-elect’s envoy was able to work with Joe Biden’s envoy and bring this deal over the line, but it is fragile and I await the decision that will necessarily come from the Israeli Security Cabinet at this time.

Northern Gaza

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We could not be clearer, either publicly or privately, about what expectations fall on Israel in relation to health provision. I have raised these issues, the Foreign Secretary has raised these issues, and my ministerial colleagues have raised these issues. It is a source of enormous frustration to the ministerial team that, this far into the conflict, we are still having to raise these issues, and we will continue to do so until there is some resolution. And that resolution must enable greater healthcare for the Palestinians of Gaza and the wider region.

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

Mr Speaker, you and I have been through this rigmarole many times over the past 14 months. I was going to ask today about the fate of Dr Abu Safiya, but I think we all know what will happen to him. I was going to ask about the babies who are freezing to death while blankets are being denied entry into Gaza, but I do not think we will be able to do much about that. The same applies to the denial of access for cancer medication, anaesthetic, or crutches or, indeed, the bombing of every single hospital.

The Minister said that he and his team are frustrated, but given the partial application of international law and the Government’s unwillingness to take any significant steps to either compel the imposition of a ceasefire or compliance with international law, rather than being frustrated, is he not ashamed that millions of people in this country and around the world believe that there is an inherent racism at the heart of British foreign policy in this regard that says that Palestinian lives matter much less than any other lives, or indeed than Israeli lives? And if he and the Minister for Development, who has answered these statements before, are ashamed, why are they hanging on to their red folders? Why are they not standing down and compelling the Government actually to do something active and physical to save these lives?

[Mr Falconer]

There are places where I will take lessons about shame, but it is not from the Conservative Benches, and particularly not on this issue. If they want to give me a hard time about what is being done in relation to the people in Gaza, they should turn to their own record, whether that is on aid into Gaza, the ICC or the ICJ. These are sober issues and we deal with them with the sobriety they require, and I would appreciate, particularly from the Conservative Benches, questions of that tone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

In relation to recognition, I am happy to clarify the position. The Israeli Government have no veto over whether we recognise a Palestinian state, or when we recognise a Palestinian state. The point I was making in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is that talks with Israel about a two-state solution will be a necessary part of a sustainable solution in the region. We therefore need to be clear that it is not possible to reach the outcomes we want in the middle east without diplomatic talks, including with the Israeli Government. That does not mean they have a veto on British Government decisions—

[Kit Malthouse]

It does.

[Mr Falconer]

Perhaps the right hon. Member has a solution for ensuring a Palestinian state without talking to the Israeli Government, but I think he would be outwith the view of most international scholars on that question.