Progression of Bills through Parliament

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on supporting this debate and pay my own tribute to Nat Dye and Sophie Blake, the sponsors of the petition. Over the last 10 years or so of campaigning on this issue and talking extensively about it, I have always been amazed at the number of dying people who give their final days, weeks and months to this campaign, determined that no one else should go through what they are going through. I watched with horror as peers tabled their 1,200th amendment, knowing that the clock for Nat, and indeed for Sophie, was ticking very loudly in their ears.

I am a Conservative, as I hope everybody knows, so I have a natural tendency to support our institutions and to understand the value of tradition. Hitherto, I had bought into the argument that the Lords was an eccentric but essential part of our democracy, that it brought an aspect to our legislative process that other countries lacked, and that the expertise it injected into our laws was valuable enough for us to tolerate its status within the constitution. However, the passage of the assisted dying Bill shocked me in a number of ways, to the extent that it has tugged in a profound way on a piece of wool in the constitutional jumper, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said.

The Bill’s passage shocked me in three ways. I sat in on a lot of the debates and I watched even more on television. One of the things that really shocked me was the pretence at scrutiny. I am surprised that the Chair of the Treasury Committee and others have collaborated in the pretence that somehow a filibuster was not taking place. There were the repetitive speeches and endless amendments. We know that opponents were going around the House of Lords encouraging peers to table amendments to spread the air of suspicion. It was not just the odd one: there was the mandatory appearance in court and the increase in the number of doctors to five, alongside the pregnancy test and the travel ban. There were endless amendments that were specious and often openly cruel.

The second thing that really shocked me about the process was the disconnection of Members of the House of Lords from the wider population, and indeed from the number of our fellow citizens who find themselves in extremis and seeking relief from their pain. It was clear from what I am afraid was the casual cruelty in many of the speeches and amendments that those Members had just not sat down and talked with people, or spent time to understand the awful circumstances that so many of our citizens find themselves in.

The third thing that really shocked me—I profess to being ashamed at my ignorance; I had not realised this—was that the House of Lords has no rules. There is no orderly way in which it can be described as an orderly House; they basically make it up as they go along. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) said, we have operated on a rather gendered “good chap” model of trusting that they would do their job. However, it seems to me that the gentlemen’s agreement has run very short of gentlemen.

I saw the same thing again and again, Friday after Friday—let us not forget: in the demand for this scrutiny, the number of Fridays was increased very significantly, so that the Lords could do the job. A small cadre of peers were determined to block the Bill by any means—or by cheating, as Rod Liddle said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge, and he is my friend, says that the House of Lords came to a position, but the point is that it was prevented from doing so. I would have accepted it if the House of Lords had voted against the Bill, and if Parliament had come to a decision and finished the task that it had been set by the British people. However, it did not. A small number of peers, some of whom had been specifically rejected by the electorate just a few weeks earlier, decided to block the Bill for God knows what reason.

I have three questions for the Leader of the House, who I am very pleased to see here. One of his duties, alongside liaising between the Government and the House of Commons, is the defence of this House, particularly our rights as Back Benchers to consider the question of mandate and conscience. First, if the Bill is reintroduced, will time be given for it to complete all its stages in this House during this Session? Secondly, can he confirm that the Parliament Act will remain the settled safety net that it has been in the past? That safety net exists not to force a result but to ensure that a question asked of the House of Lords has to be answered, rather than just being refused.

Thirdly, given that this wool has been tugged, will the Government commit to some public examination, such as through a royal commission, of our constitutional settlement? It has become clear that this issue, which seems to some people like a small abuse of the rules, is actually a domino undermining trust in our entire parliamentary structure. It has called into question whether a bicameral system with an unelected Chamber filled with appointees, pretty much all of whom are subject to the patronage of one Prime Minister or another, is really appropriate for our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the petitioners for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.

I know that we are all mindful of the sincere and strongly held views that led to the submission of the petition. The previous Session’s debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were, in both Houses, consistently heartfelt and moving, with people on both sides of the argument often speaking from real, difficult experience. The debates also provided many people outside Parliament with a chance to talk—in many cases, for the first time—about the reality of death and dying, and what compassionate and respectful care should look like as people move towards the end of their lives.

As some hon. Members will know, I have actual, first-hand experience of being given a terminal diagnosis. I have stage 4, incurable breast cancer myself, so this is not an abstract debate for me either. Like all of us, I am going to die. However, my diagnosis means that I know what is most likely to kill me, and without the intervention of medical science, it would be killing me a damn sight sooner than it currently is. That does not necessarily give me any more wisdom, but it perhaps gives me a certain clarity on the issue of end-of-life care.

One thing that I am very pleased has emerged from the debate is that the state of palliative care is now firmly at the heart of the political agenda. Whatever our different views on the Bill, I hope that the passion of both sides will serve as a clear, united call for better, more accessible care for everyone. I do not think there is similar consensus on the proposal we are debating today. Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the laws before us is one of the most important safeguards—perhaps the most important safeguard—in our constitution.

Our democracy is not a matter of ensuring that legislation reaches the statute book as quickly as possible. That was not why we or our colleagues in the other place were given the privilege of serving in Parliament. It is not why every single one of us takes so much care over our decisions, speeches and the causes we champion, or why we sit late into the night to ensure that every voice is heard. As time-consuming and as uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, our legislative process was deliberately designed to allow opportunities for challenge, scrutiny and improvement. They are a feature, not a bug.

The petition argues that if MPs vote for a Bill and opinion polls suggest public support for its principle, the Government should use their powers to ensure that the Bill progresses. I disagree. Parliament’s role is to pass the best possible legislation, not to vote on a principle and let the detail work itself out later. Sometimes our work begins with campaigning but, ultimately, we are legislators dealing with detail and specifics. MPs, peers and Ministers share a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Parliament not as a matter of dry academic principle, but because bad legislation has truly terrible consequences.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ashley Dalton]

I will not; there is not enough time.

Once we begin asking Governments to override democratic protocols or decide that the revising Chamber’s scrutiny should be optional, we create a precedent. Constitutional principles must apply consistently. We have our constitutional arrangements because it is our responsibility to consider not only the outcomes we want today, but the outcomes we might not want tomorrow.

The petition is specifically about the role of the House of Lords. In my time as a Minister, it was a great honour to work alongside Members from the red Benches as well as the green. Peers are our colleagues, not our enemies or rivals. The Lords, as an institution, has made a vast contribution to the work and reputation of our Parliament. There is no doubt whatsoever about the primacy of the elected House, which is why peers do not vote against legislation that secured a mandate from the public because it was in a Government’s manifesto. In fact, they rarely vote against legislation at all—as we have heard, they did not vote against the Bill. Still, however, the House of Commons is not sovereign—our Parliament is. Our Parliament is a trinity of the Commons, the Lords and the Crown, and each has a distinct and critical role to play.

We cannot believe that a piece of legislation is serious and important, but also demand a weaker and worse process for passing it. I am also cautious about relying too heavily on opinion polls as a justification for altering parliamentary processes. Public opinion matters enormously, of course, but polls can be crude instruments. Governing involves more than simply measuring public sentiment at a particular moment in time. If supporters of a Bill are confident in its merits, they should welcome scrutiny. Good legislation survives challenge. Strong arguments withstand examination. Many laws emerge better because difficult questions were asked during their passage through Parliament, including by the experts in the revising Chamber.

Ultimately, this debate is not about whether one supports or opposes a particular Bill; it is about what kind of parliamentary system we want. Do we want a Parliament that carefully examines legislation, especially that dealing with matters of profound social change, or do we want one in which surface popularity becomes a reason to accelerate the legislative process and reduce opportunities for scrutiny? I believe that we do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point but, as other hon. Members have made clear in this debate, the House of Lords did not vote because that is part of its process of scrutinising. The Lords was performing the role that it is constitutionally required to perform.

The Bill in question was not a Government Bill and not a manifesto commitment. A deliberate choice was made by the Prime Minister to take an approach that did not put the policy, or even the promise of a free vote, before the electorate. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Salisbury-Addison convention reflects the principle that the House of Lords should not frustrate legislation that gives effect to commitments on which the electorate have conferred a democratic mandate. As Viscount Cranborne spelled out at the time,

“it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 August 1945; Vol. 137, c. 47.]

[Kit Malthouse]

I am slightly intrigued by my hon. Friend’s approach. In the election, I stood on a personal pledge that I would support assisted dying, having voted for it before, in 2015. In my hon. Friend’s view, what importance should we attach to an absolute majority of the House of Commons? The assisted dying Bill passed with an absolute majority of all eligible Members, not counting Speakers and others, who could vote. What he is essentially saying is that that is just an ordinary part of the process, rather than what it should be in a democracy, which is decisive.

[John Lamont]

The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly will go away and reflect on that, but as my hon. Friend knows, because he is a very distinguished member of the Modernisation Committee, we are looking at how the House of Commons should best use its time. Part of that discussion will relate to when private Members’ Bills are debated and how long they are debated for. He will know that a number of Commons Committees have looked at this question over a period of time—not least the Procedure Committee, which, if memory serves, is looking at it again.

However, limited time is available for private Members’ Bills. There might be a clear decision at the end of a debate—on a time-limited Second Reading, for example, although that would be novel, given that the aim is often to get to 2.30 pm having talked out a Bill, and sometimes the Government of the day help in that process [Interruption.] They do; that is part of how private Members’ Bills are dealt with. The more I look at the issue, the less I am sure whether they are necessarily fit for purpose.

However, if we were to get to that point, that would not address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about how long the House should take to consider these matters. This House rose to the occasion on Second Reading—recall the great fear that there would be a great row, which would show the House at its worst. The House rose to that occasion, but we had at least five hours of debate on Second Reading, so I worry slightly about what would happen if the process were curtailed.

At the heart of the issue, although I am not commenting on the Bill in this context, is the fact that Members need to reflect on whether a private Member’s Bill is the route for certain legislation, particularly when it concerns a big issue and there is a question of conscience.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the point that the Leader of the House is making. However, if the House of Commons is determined that even a private Member’s Bill should go through, even in the face of a Government-attempted filibuster, does he agree that it has tools at its disposal to allow it to do so? As he will remember, even in the assisted dying debate, we had to move that the Question now be put. If the House of Commons, in convocation, has the majority to override the Government, it can do so, even in those circumstances. What we have found is that in the Lords that is not the case.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

That is the case in the Commons. I am trying to recall Second Reading, but I assume that is what happened. If there is a majority in favour of a Bill and a motion to bring the debate to an end, that motion will succeed—it does not matter what the Government of the day say. I was talking about other Bills that the Government might dispute, rather than distinctly private Members’ Bills where there is a matter of conscience and a free vote.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is drawing out the contrast, and there is a wider debate about how the House of Lords conducts its business. As I have said before, at the end of the day if the House of Lords to carry out independent scrutiny, it is not for the Government of the day to set those rules. It might be for them to look at an issue in the context of the Parliament Act, for example, but it is not for them to set the day-to-day rules. Unless the Government had a majority in the House of Lords, they would not be able to do that.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is always a good candidate to call early, because he asks good questions about his constituency. He is absolutely right that poorly managed roadworks are a blight on our communities; I hear about that many times in these sessions. We are giving local areas more powers in that regard and are doubling fines and applying charges of up to £10,000 a day for utility works that overrun. He can be assured that the devolution Bill will be coming before this House imminently.

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

As I am sure you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House know, the number of children who have been killed in the war on Gaza now runs into the many thousands. Similar numbers of children have been mutilated and injured, and a large number of them require specialist medical treatment. As I hope she knows, countries across the west have responded by bringing those children who cannot get the treatment that they need in Gaza to their country for treatment. Shamefully, the UK has not done so, admitting only two children so far. The Home Secretary has inexplicably refused many applications to come here, despite the fact that Project Pure Hope has raised all the money required for the children’s transport, treatment and maintenance. May we please have a statement, so that MPs can understand why the numbers are so small, why applications have been refused, and what the Government will do to increase the number? If we cannot have a statement, may we at least have a meeting between the relevant Minister and a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss what more can be done to help these children in dire need?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important issue. As he says, the situation in Gaza—the suffering, the killing, the lack of aid and support—is totally intolerable and unacceptable, and needs to be brought to an end. That is what this Government have focused on doing in all their efforts in the middle east. We once again hold some hope of that ceasefire happening. He raises an important point about children who need hospital care and treatment. I will gladly arrange for a Minister to meet him and a delegation of others to talk about how the UK Government can play our part.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Shuttle buses such as the one my hon. Friend describes in his constituency—especially those that go to hospitals and other local services—are vital. For too long, local areas and communities have not had a say in the bus routes they need in their area. That is why we have brought forward the Bus Services Bill, which is making its way through the other House and will ensure that his constituents have more of a say over the bus routes in their area.

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

As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, my constituency is the source of a number of globally significant chalk streams, not least and most famously the River Test. A number of Members were pressing the previous Government to bring forward a chalk stream recovery pack, to help get those rivers back to their best state of health, so you can imagine our disappointment when we learnt in the media before Christmas that this pack was being abandoned, as was subsequently confirmed in a ministerial statement. Could we have a statement urgently from the Secretary of State about what he will do to replace that pack and bring these rivers back to the state of health they should be in?

[Mr Speaker]

We have to help Sir Charles Walker’s fishing—come on, Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, and it sounds like that project is vital for creating more social homes in his constituency of Sheffield South East. I am really sorry to hear that he has been passed from pillar to post by different Departments, and this is exactly the sort of issue to raise in business questions. I expect Members to receive timely and helpful responses from Ministers, and I will raise the issue with the relevant Departments as soon as I leave the Chamber.

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

The Labour manifesto contained a pledge to recognise Palestine. Subsequently, the Prime Minister has said that the Palestinians have an “undeniable right” to recognition, but something is holding him back. Could we please have a debate in Government time to examine the fact that all our Arab allies are saying that recognition is now a prerequisite for peace in the middle east, so that the House can vote to support the Prime Minister in taking this very significant step?

[Lucy Powell]

We absolutely do support recognising Palestine as a state, which is an indelible right of the Palestinian people. It is absolutely critical that we achieve a long-term, two-state solution in the middle east that recognises both Israel’s right to exist as a safe and secure country, and the Palestinian people’s right to have a Palestinian state that is also safe, secure and free. That is what we are working towards internationally and with our allies across the world, and it is something that I know the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister spend a lot of their time dealing with. We have Foreign Office questions coming up next week, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is keen to come to this House as often as possible to update Members on what is happening in the middle east. I am sure these issues will be debated further.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election, on being here and on asking her first question in this place. That is always a daunting process, but I hope she now feels that she has the confidence to go on. She has raised an important matter which I know has been raised by others in the past—namely the challenges faced by rural schools with, in many instances, diminishing pupil rolls—and I think she should raise it again during next week’s education debate.

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

I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House say earlier that town centre regeneration remained a priority for the Government. May we please have an urgent statement from a Minister about the status of levelling-up fund grants? As the Leader of the House may know, towards the end of last year, Andover in my constituency was awarded £18.3 million to kick-start the regeneration of its town centre. Since then, a memorandum of understanding has been signed and some money has changed hands, and on that basis Test Valley borough council has made significant contractual and budgetary commitments, but there now appears to be an inexplicable delay in progress with the grant. We have to ensure that the money is spent by the early part of 2026. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could provide some clarity, not just for Andover and for me, but for other Members who are similarly affected.

[Lucy Powell]

I will certainly seek to obtain some clarity for the right hon. Gentleman on that issue. As he will know, this Government are prioritising town centre redevelopment and “brownfield first”, and our planning and infrastructure Bill that was announced yesterday will include reforms of compulsory purchase order and land value issues, which will enable local authorities to acquire, for instance, derelict or empty properties that they need for town centre regeneration at a more appropriate value. That will unlock significant investment, which I hope will benefit the project to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Speaker’s Statement

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will take one more point of order and then I really think we need to move on.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two points in what Mr Speaker just said on which I seek your clarification. First, he implied that the proceedings of the House were manipulated by outside intimidation, with regard given to things said outside on social media and reacted to within the House. Quite an important Rubicon has been crossed, and it may have been crossed without the consent of Members. I would like to know where the processes of the House are likely to go, given the outside influences that may be brought to bear. I would be grateful for some clarification on that.

Secondly, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you, but, bluntly, you seem to have rammed through two decisions that were quite important to a lot of Members in which no individual vote will have been recorded. A number of us had thought quite carefully about how we were going to vote in those Divisions. Essentially, we were—forgive me—taken by surprise by those two decisions being rammed through. I wonder if it is possible to either void them or run them again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The fact is, I put the Question and nobody called against it—[Interruption.] No.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I point to the Prime Minister’s record on this as Chancellor. He has been very clear that he wants to protect people as we face what will be a very difficult winter and beyond. I have just announced that the Chancellor will make a statement very shortly. There is a huge number of support schemes—we are doing a lot to support people—but they are quite complicated, so I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing them all together in her booklet.

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

The Leader of the House has revealed that the autumn statement on 17 November will be exactly that, a statement. That will possibly give the House only an hour and a half of questions to examine what we are told will be a profound statement with huge implications for our public services and our constituents. It is surely unacceptable that time has not been set aside for the House to properly scrutinise and debate the statement. Should we not learn the lesson of the late, lamented mini-Budget, when the House was not able to do its job of subjecting it to the scrutiny that might well have improved it and avoided the subsequent economic disaster? Will the Leader of the House please find time in the Government’s schedule for the House to do its job of properly scrutinising the statement?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have learned something from that episode because we did have a debate and, actually, what people wanted was a statement. It is proper that the Chancellor sets out his statement. All Members of this House will have the ability to question him. If there is appetite for a debate, and my right hon. Friend makes a good case for one, it should be after people have seen the accompanying documents and assessments, which will be of most help to this House. However, I have raised this matter and, if colleagues agree with him, I would urge them to make representations to that effect.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear that any knife crime is tragic. As Secretary of State for Justice, I legislated in the last Parliament—together with the former Member for Enfield North, Nick de Bois—significantly to increase and extend the penalties for carrying a knife and to create a presumption of a mandatory jail sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife for a second time, for which, to my mind, there is little excuse. I will give careful consideration to what time can be made available for such a debate, but a lot of the time that is provided in the House is now in the hands of the Backbench Business Committee, and I encourage the hon. Lady also to talk to the Committee about this.

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

Given that the Lord Chancellor has announced that he is undertaking a sentencing review, does the Leader of the House think it would be sensible to find time for a general debate on sentencing, so that the Lord Chancellor can get a sense of the wishes of the House before he introduces any legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

There is certainly a logic in Members having a chance to express their views as the Lord Chancellor prepares his review, and I will talk to him about how that might best be made possible.

Business of the House

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the concerns, and these are difficult and sensitive issues. Our system was rightly established by the previous Labour Government to assess the effectiveness of drugs and whether they should be made available on the NHS. Some decisions are controversial and difficult for those affected by those illnesses. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns are passed today to the Department of Health. I know Ministers will want to return to the issue at an appropriate moment.

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

The number of young people in and around Andover in my constituency who have tragically died at their own hand in the past few years has reached disturbing levels. Further, Veterans in Action, a charity based just outside Andover, is currently on a round-Britain tour raising awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder. Bearing in mind the striking maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), can the Leader of the House be persuaded to make time for us to debate mental health issues, and particularly mental health provision to veterans and young adults?

[Chris Grayling]

I take the issue very seriously. It is disturbing for all of us that the number of young male suicides has risen to a level not seen in a generation in this country. We need to get to grips with the problem. I am pleased that, in the last Budget before the general election, the Chancellor said he would make additional funding available for mental health work in the national health service. I commend all those who are working in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere both to raise awareness and to find ways to tackle the problem, which I know will come before the House regularly. I suspect there will be cross-party support for a debate in one of the Backbench Business Committee slots.