Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality.

As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal.

I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running

“a network of torture camps”,

there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty.

In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.

Iran

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on Iran and for his question. We are aware of the reports of pro-regime protests in the UK. I cannot comment, as he would expect, on the process of sanction or proscription review, but I have taken his remarks to heart.

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

I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I do not want to be drawn into speculating about regime change in Iran. The question at the moment is the rights of the Iranian protesters, which we want to see protected. We are horrified to see those rights violated in the way reports suggest, and that is where I want to focus my remarks today.

Arctic Security

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

On the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised, that was not an operation; it was a planning process, as takes place very routinely, and that continues to be the case. We are arguing for a broader approach to Arctic security. In fact, the UK’s strongest contribution is around the north of Norway. Our partnership with Norway is really unrivalled. We have the commandos and the excellent work that I saw at Camp Viking and elsewhere, as well as the joint frigates. For a non-Arctic nation, our contribution to Arctic security is unrivalled. We see that as being part of the Arctic sentry and a wider approach to collective Arctic security.

My hon. Friend also raises the issue of investment. That is exactly why we have put forward the biggest increase in defence spending for very many years.

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

I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is being rather mealy-mouthed about a situation that the President of the United States obviously sees as very simple. He believes that through extortion or military force—he is not denying that he may use military force—he can acquire Greenland, whichever way we look at it. As the Foreign Secretary will know, significant military assets owned by the United States are based here in the United Kingdom. Could they be used as part of an invasion of Greenland against our will? Does she recognise that when tariffs were first wielded as a weapon against the Canadians, we should have stood with them, rather than cut a snivelling deal?

Middle East and North Africa

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Let me say a little bit about the 19 settlements that were announced. I condemned them immediately. I have sanctioned the Minister in question—I announced it in June—Minister Smotrich, who is completely committed politically to opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state. As I announced in my statement, today we have a Palestinian embassy in London. The British Government now irrevocably recognise a Palestinian state. I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend says. There are Ministers in the Israeli Government who are completely opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is not the policy of the British Government, and those are not the actions that I and the rest of the Government have taken since July 2024.

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

As the Minister pointed out, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. I join colleagues in recognising that, against that backdrop, the barring or denial of access for those aid agencies is particularly cruel and wicked; it is horrifying to think what the motivation might be. Of course, those agencies also deliver services in the west bank where, as colleagues have also pointed out, the situation deteriorates, with home demolitions, summary executions and seemingly psychopathic thugs roaming the territory, burning homes and attacking innocent Palestinians.

Happily, we have recognised the state of Palestine and, as the Minister said, we have now established full diplomatic relations. Against that backdrop, if the Palestinian Government were to request that the UK ceased trading with foreign nationals illegally resident on its territory, on what basis would we refuse that?

[Mr Falconer]

As with the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I will resist the temptation to be drawn into speculative questions, but let me just be clear that the west bank is considered Palestinian territory, and Israeli goods must be labelled as being produced within green line Israel if they are to benefit from the trade arrangements that Israel has with the UK. If they are not produced in green line Israel, they are subject to very different arrangements indeed. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has signed the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has written, and I will provide a full response in due course.

Budget Resolutions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not because I believe there is a conflict, but because it illustrates the fact that I am one of those sadly rare individuals in the House who have spent the last 30 years owning and building a business. Hopefully, it also illustrates that I know whereof I speak.

I sincerely wish, on behalf of my employees and my constituents, that I could welcome today’s Budget. Before I am a Conservative, I am a British citizen, and I want the country to win. All of us should hope that any Budget, delivered by any Chancellor of any party, will put the country on a sound footing for a prosperous future. Sadly, today’s Budget was, to me, most redolent of the omnishambles Budget of 2012. We have to admit, as a party, to mistakes that we have made in the past. That Budget attempted to be politically smart to satisfy the Government’s Back Benchers, but in the hours and days that followed, it quickly unravelled, and I must tell Labour Members that I think exactly the same will happen with this Budget, because it is full of contradictions and incoherences in seemingly small areas. Take electric vehicles. I declare an interest, as the driver of an electric vehicle. The Government are pumping money into subsidising the roll-out of charging—indeed, there are grants for take-up—but the pence per mile being charged will discriminate against particular groups who need their cars, such as the disabled and the elderly, and against those in rural constituencies, who will be seriously disincentivised. It will also have a psychologically damaging impact on people who are thinking about buying an electric vehicle.

Another of those areas is the housing market. We seem to think that an attack on landlords and the higher end of the market will not have an impact on the rest of the market. I am afraid that Labour Members will hear their constituents squealing, given the inflated prices in the capital, and I think that measures on housing, too, will unravel pretty quickly.

The Chancellor said that she wants to encourage co-operatives and employee ownership, yet she has dealt a hammer blow to employee ownership by reducing by 50% the tax incentives for owners to transfer businesses to their employees, so we will see less of it.

Much was made of the apprenticeship changes and the roll-out of nurseries. That is great, but hidden in the Blue Book is a £7.5 billion hit to students and an overall reduction in per pupil funding in education. All of these things will be revealed in the days to come.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the inherent contradictions. Would it be fair to characterise this Budget as the left hand not knowing what the further left hand is doing?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed.

Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may.

First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being

“95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”.

That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Obviously, the Labour briefing says how much the previous Conservative Government borrowed over their period in office, but given that we inherited a situation where £1 in every £4 of public spending was being borrowed, it took a considerable period of austerity to get annual borrowing down. During that borrowing, we accumulated a lot of extra debt.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is worth remembering that if we had not gone through a period of austerity post the financial crash and the mess that we inherited, we would not have been able to rescue the economy during covid. We would not have had the headroom that allowed us to re-leverage the country in emergency circumstances. I wish that we now had the same foresight.

Paragraph 3.13 of the Blue Book points out that, in the OBR’s view, there is nothing in this Budget that will do anything for growth. The OBR has declined to revise its previous output predictions because the Budget does nothing for growth.

Finally, the fourth bullet point in paragraph 1.28 points out that the tax-to-GDP ratio will become the highest it has ever been in this country and will constrain business incentives for the future. I urge colleagues to read the Blue Book—the truth lies therein.

We find ourselves in a position where we have a Budget that is trumpeting itself as a triumph, but which is nevertheless producing the highest tax rate of all time, completely flat and anaemic growth, and inflation and interest rates—they are in the Blue Book—that will be higher for longer than they otherwise would have been. The outlook has worsened since March, to the extent that the OBR makes a point of it.

[Yuan Yang]

I, too, very much enjoy reading the Blue Book. While we are talking about our favourite passages, I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman makes of page 29, which says that

“persistent weakness in productivity growth relative to the pre-financial crisis period is more likely to reflect underlying structural trends.”

What was going on in the 2010s that meant that the structure of the UK economy was so bad?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady raises a very good point, which I will come on to shortly.

All of this points to the fact that, let us be honest, this is not actually a Budget about growth. I only left the Chamber for half an hour to have a cup of tea, and all the speeches that I have heard from those on the other side of the House—the “far left” side, or whatever it might be—have been about redistribution. They have all been about how pleased Labour Members are at the redistribution that is going on. That is fine, but I wish their Front Benchers would be honest about what they are trying to do, because they are sacrificing the prospect of future growth for the economy in order to tick the box on Labour Members’ political demands about redistribution. That is fine, and we have been here before. As hon. Members have said, we have been through most of these scenarios before. I am only just old enough to remember, but it happened in the 1970s. That was when we last had an openly redistributive Government—forget Tony Blair, because he was not about that—and we saw what happened to growth as a result.

To me, four things were broadly missing from this Budget. First, there very obviously is no governing philosophy of the political economy that any of us can discern. There is no plan or strategy. There is maths, there are inputs and outputs, and there is political box-ticking, but there is no sense of what kind of economy we are trying to build. There was a nod towards it in the desire to review the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, but that is really about trying to keep the lobby groups in the City happy. There is no plan to build an energetic economy.

Secondly, as has been said by a number of Opposition Members, there is no comprehension of how this Government—and I have to say, sadly, previous Governments—have damaged the return on risk. A number of Members have said that capitalism relies on risk. People go out there to invest, to risk their own money and to buy businesses, and they do that calculating the return they are going to get. If we continue to tax that return, to regulate that return and to make that return less attractive, fewer and fewer people will take that risk. If we want a scale-up economy that takes advantage of the scientific and technological inventions that we are so good at producing, we have to reduce the impositions we put on risk and make it worth while.

Thirdly, we did not have any talk about frictional taxes. The Chancellor was trumpeting growth this year, but the only reason we had a bump in growth this year was the closing of the stamp duty window, when people rushed—

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will not give way, because I am running out of time. People rushed to fill the void, and we saw a bump in growth in the first half of the year, but since then it has been tailing off. We have to focus on the fact that frictional taxes do enormous damage.

Finally, we are at the bottom of an ellipse in human achievement, particularly in this country. If we do not get capitalism right in the UK to take advantage of that, as we did during the Victorian era, we will not build wealth for the centuries of the future, and we or our children will not live off the profits of this period.

Gaza and Sudan

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Given that the next debate is heavily subscribed, I thought it would be helpful to indicate to Members that I will finish the statement at about 3 pm.

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

I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary has neatly illustrated the problem with the British Government’s position in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. She mentioned the welcome return of Israeli hostages, but made no mention of the Palestinian detainees who have been returned to their families. She mentioned the return of the bodies of Israelis, but made no mention of the dozens of bodies of Palestinians that have been returned to their families. Can she not see that until we value both people equally and bring accountability to both peoples, we will make little progress in this appalling situation?

Specifically to avoid accusations of illegitimacy, how will the Palestinians be represented on this board of peace? Secondly, the UN resolution puts significant conditions on the Palestinians to ensure compliance. What conditions are being put on the Israeli Government to ensure their compliance in this project? Thirdly, the situation in the west bank is not just “appalling”, as the Foreign Secretary said in her statement, but the worst it has ever been, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) said. Will the Foreign Secretary fall into the same trap as her predecessor of being all talk and doing the bare minimum to keep those on her Benches from open revolt, or will she step forward and bring accountability for the daily acts of violence and terrorism that are taking place?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government are the first to take the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was taken exactly because for too long successive Governments have supported a two-state solution and yet recognised only one state. We believe it is right to change that and to recognise the state of Palestine. It is why we have been in continued discussion with the Palestinian Authority, who have welcomed the UN resolution and the peace process and have been involved in detailed discussions with the Arab states, too.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the detainees, those who have lost their lives and the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have lost their lives in Gaza as a result of the war over the past two years. It is also right that we recognise the huge damage that Hamas have done, including through their terrorist attack on 7 October. We need to address all the suffering that has taken place across Gaza and across the region if we are to bring people together to deliver a lasting peace. That is what the current process is working to do, and it is what we are working to do as part of it. There will be difficulties and challenges ahead. It will be complicated, but we need to continue that work.

Gaza and Hamas

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. There are two areas in which aid will be particularly vital. Of course, there are the immediate needs of the Gazan people. Most recently at Sharm el-Sheikh, the Prime Minister announced a £20 million contribution to the humanitarian programme to meet those needs, which will be focused on water, sanitation and health. There is also a need for the sustainable reconstruction of Gaza. The message that we hear so often from Palestinians is that they wish for their own companies and private sector to be engaged in that endeavour, and do not simply wish to see the World Bank or the United Nations leading the charge. They, too, want to take agency in those questions. That was one reason we involved them so closely in the conference that I held in October.

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

Once again, it is the children of Gaza who seem to bear the brunt of the violence, with reports that 35 of them were liquidated overnight in the casual dropping of bombs in retaliation. Equally as shocking is the realisation that there will be absolutely no accountability whatsoever for those deaths, likely no investigation into the targeting or intelligence used, and no sense of any punishment for what is very obviously a significant crime. Allied to that is the fact that it has proven quite a handy distraction from the significant violence and brutality taking place daily in the west bank. Given that we have now recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation, will there be any further measures to deter Israeli aggression on Palestinian soil?

[Mr Falconer]

We have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about events in the west bank, and we have announced three waves of sanctions—including at the most senior levels—against the Israeli Government. I reassure the House that we remain very focused on settler violence. We are moving into the olive harvesting period, which, as the right hon. Member will know, is a period in which violence is often particularly high. Regrettably, we are seeing similar trends this year. I will have more to say about that later in the day.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s first point on individual incidents, I refer him to my previous comments. It is important, at such a delicate moment for the ceasefire, that we are as precise as possible. That is why the CMCC is engaged in the way that it is.

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.