Kit Malthouse MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most depressing things about these statements is the profound damage that they do to British national interests and our standing in the world through their pathetic delusion. On Gaza, could the Foreign Secretary confirm that she is aware that in the last two weeks Israeli Ministers have made clear their desire for the mass emigration of Palestinians from the territory, and that we should see the stranglehold they have imposed in that context? Could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that the meagre sanctions that the previous and current Government have imposed so far have had absolutely no impact on the conduct of anybody in Israel, let alone the Israeli Government, and that the current wave of what she is calling sanctions are not actually sanctions but asset freezes? That means that unless the organisations or individuals targeted have assets in the UK, the measures will have no impact. In fact, the regime that she has chosen to bring them in under does not even include goods and services, so as we are all still free to sell those organisations or individuals bricks and mortar, corrugated iron or insurance, the measures are unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on what is going on in the west bank.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pity that the Minister has chosen attack as the best form of defence when so many Members across the Chamber have repeatedly raised their concerns about the issue over many years. Nevertheless, I will set aside his bombast in the hope that the implementation of these welcome changes is more thoughtful. Will part of the planned guidance for parents about screen usage, particularly by very young children, address parents’ screen usage in the presence of their young children? There is growing evidence that what is now called technoference is having a strong impact on the attachments that parents form with their children in the early months and years of life, and that that is being felt, certainly in Andover and elsewhere in my constituency, in primary schools when those children arrive. It would be helpful for parents to understand the impact that screen usage is having on them and on their attachment to their children.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the Minister is realising, we are all a bit fed up with yet another gaslighting statement on Israel and Palestine. There is no ceasefire in Lebanon; we all see the killings—the double and triple-tap killings—on a daily basis. As he himself said, the situation in the west bank is worse than it has ever been, with rampaging gangs kettling Palestinians into the cities where who knows what will happen to him, yet we continue to trade with these people and support them. In Gaza, whether by accident or design, there is no progress whatsoever, and the situation continues to worsen. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says, can the Minister not see that when he stands up and says that the Government will not hesitate, we are all thinking that every statement is yet another hesitation in the face of an unfolding picture of savagery across the whole region? I have one specific question for the Minister on the detainees from the flotilla in particular: if that is what Ben-Gvir and his henchmen are willing to do to British and European citizens on camera, what does he think they are doing to Palestinians off camera?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, I am sure the Minister is aware that lots of manufacturing businesses are, frankly, screaming about the damage that the tariffs are going to do in five weeks’ time. Will he please consider an extension of the transition period to two years to allow three things to happen? First, it would allow UK steel capacity to grow in order to cover the gap. Secondly, it would allow quotas to be set correctly, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged in the absence of UK production capacity. Thirdly, it would allow us to work out how it can be fair that somebody importing steel into the UK to produce a product pays tariffs, but somebody importing a finished product from overseas that is made from the self-same steel does not face tariffs.

• 20 May 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In five weeks’ time, the Government will be introducing penal tariffs on steel imports into the UK and, at the same time, massively reducing tariff-free quotas. This will cause enormous damage to the UK’s manufacturing base in the absence of adequate steelmaking capacity in the UK. Furthermore, the way the tariffs are drawn means that Stannah Lifts, a world-beating company based in Andover in my constituency, will face tariffs when importing steel into the UK to manufacture its products, but a competitor’s imported finished product, made from the same steel, will not attract tariffs. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Will the Prime Minister please arrange for his Secretary of State to focus on this issue and get it sorted out?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is laying out a compelling illustration of the injustices to individuals that this highly complex charge is causing. As he moves on to his solution, will he also reflect on the macroeconomic impact of this complexity and deterrence? I was Housing Minister for a year. Sadly, in those 12 months, I did not get round to sorting out this mess, but it was obvious to me that the small builder sector, which used to produce over 50% of the homes in this country, had been decimated by the crash and never returned. This disincentive to the kind of work that would encourage a really strong small builder sector, which could then contribute more to our economy, is both a brake on growth and a brake on the wider housing aspirations that both Governments have had over the last few years.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I share her frustration. In my constituency, there is a large area of protected national landscape, the North Wessex downs national park, which is constantly under threat from these kinds of proposals. Does she share my frustration at the lack of imagination shown in the UK? The A303 and the A34 run through my constituency, and there are tens of miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels. That is the approach they take in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere, but we never seem to get over the imagination gap about where we could put these things—floating or whatever—that may not be quite so damaging and intrusive. She probably has parts of the M1 in her constituency, which has endless miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels that could power her constituency and mine without harming any visual amenity whatsoever.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We all hear the Prime Minister’s words about Lebanon, but the lesson of the last two and a half years is that his words, and the words of anyone in this House, have no impact on an Israeli Government seemingly led by supremacist maniacs. Before Easter, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many Lebanese was an acceptable number to see killed over the coming weeks, and we have learned over the Easter break that there is seemingly no upper limit before we are willing to act. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: given that he rightly proudly pointed to the part Britain is playing in defending other nations in the region, why have we not stepped forward to defend Lebanese civilians in the same way we have others? Secondly, I have an even simpler question if he cannot answer that one: does Lebanon have a right to exist?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is right that we all breathed a sigh of relief this morning at the American President stepping back from the abyss of an attack on Iran’s power network. However, it remains the case that just a few days ago a projectile fell within 350 metres of Iran’s only nuclear power station. The Secretary of State spoke compellingly about the courage of British personnel in defending our assets in the region and those of our allies. If it were to come to our attention that, in an era of irrational decision making, an attack against that nuclear power station was contemplated, with the catastrophic effect that would have on the region, what steps would we take to prevent that attack?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most depressing things about the Foreign Secretary’s statement is that she seems to have failed to learn from the failure of her predecessors of both Governments, who were repeatedly warned that if the violence and cruelty in Gaza were left unchecked, it would spread out across the entire region and possibly consume it in flames. We find ourselves in exactly that position. I was struck by the passage of her statement concerning Lebanon, because it is almost completely the same as passages that were said about Gaza at the start of that conflict—“We are very concerned, we are protesting to the Israelis, and we are sending some aid, but there is really nothing we can do”. I have three questions. First, we have been supporting the Lebanese armed forces for many years now, so do we believe that the Lebanese have a right to self-defence, and if they do, how will we support them in the defence of their civilian population? Secondly, what will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent Lebanon from becoming a new Gaza—a phrase that has been used by Israeli officials about this conflict? Thirdly, if she is not willing to do either of those things, how many Lebanese is an acceptable number for us to see killed over the next few weeks?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  We think for ourselves.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  So is that a yes about voting for higher bills?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  As I think I said, I agree that people should be treated with respect; my question was more about why it is being done through this particular route. For the Government to legally have grounds to include what we are discussing as part of, effectively, a procurement process, there has to be a statutory basis on which they are doing that; it cannot just be shoved through on a non-universal basis. I was asking for the authority on which it is included. I am sorry if I misread the time limits regulation. Could the Minister confirm that, if the Government give notice before 31 December 2028 for 12, 15, 19 or 120 more rounds to come, they will then be able to continue post that deadline? So they can in fact manufacture a deadline. Finally—rather than my having to intervene again; I hope you will bear with me, Ms Jardine—could the Minister confirm to colleagues what he said: we are being asked to vote today for higher energy bills for our constituents in perpetuity, or certainly for the next few years, as a result of this instrument? Just so everyone is clear: you are voting for higher bills.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I am a little alarmed by this statutory instrument and its implications for my residents in North West Hampshire. I have a number of questions for the Minister. My understanding is that this scheme was originally established in the aftermath of the disruption to supply chains caused by the conflict in Ukraine. There was significant concern about the ability of the offshore industry to continue, so the subsidy was put in place on a supposedly temporary basis. That was to allow for the uninterrupted development of an industry that had hitherto been working quite well, but was suffering at that point. This statutory instrument, however, turns that temporary subsidy into a permanent feature of the landscape. We are voting through, colleagues, a permanent subsidy to the wind industry. [ Interruption. ] Well, there is no sunset clause; that has been taken out. There is no review mechanism—there is nothing. If the Minister wants to intervene on me, I am quite happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see this is an open-ended subsidy scheme through the CfD system. My questions are configured around that assumption. First, could the Minister confirm that there will be no annual parliamentary vote on this subsidy? Normally, a subsidy to an industry would expect to come through direct expenditure from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade or whatever it might be. This is being funded through the supplier obligation levy, which is a direct levy on consumer bills. There is no approval by the House of the budget. In fact, I think it is just approved administratively—it is what it is. The consumer will pay, whether we like it or not. If the Minister could confirm that, that would be great. As I understand it, the budget for AR7 was about £544 million. Could the Minister confirm for us the projected budget that the Government expect for AR8, and therefore how much my residents in North West Hampshire can expect to be added to their electricity bill to pay for this statutory instrument? Much of the Government’s case for extending what is—let us be clear—an industrial subsidy is that there is a very high leverage. I looked at the maths, and the leverage of private sector to public sector is about 16:1. How was that number reached? I could not see in the impact assessment what the maths was, what assumptions had been made or whether this had been independently verified. Is there some kind of National Audit Office examination of that number? I have been a Minister myself, and I was always very sceptical about these public-private leverage numbers. They are often promoted by the industry looking for the subsidy, and make their way into these sorts of impact assessments without any kind of checking. I would be grateful to understand what the assumptions were. Could the Minister also confirm that this is now a permanent feature of the landscape—that there is no sunset, statutory timeline, let or control? People will effectively just bid through the CfD system, the subsidy will make up the difference, they get to build their onshore, floating offshore or whatever wind it might be, and my constituents and I have to pay no matter what. Then I wanted to ask a bit about this fair work charter. I understand that the Government are very keen on employees’ rights. We should all make sure that people are treated with respect in employment, but using a statutory instrument effectively to extend employment regulations seems very odd. I wonder whether that will be an ongoing feature of the landscape for statutory instruments such as this and whether we can expect a kind of extension of regulation by stealth. I am sure these regulations are perfectly amenable, but their being contemplated in a small Committee of Members, rather than on the Floor of the House, as the Employment Rights Act 2025 was, or indeed going through both Houses in all their pomp, seems to me a slightly sneaky way to get around proper Government scrutiny. I would be very interested if the Minister could point me, please, to the specific statutory authority that permits the use of CfD contracts to impose employment standards on developers and their supply chains. If he cannot point me to that, what is the legal authority, please, for that being included in this statutory instrument? Finally, CfDs were designed originally to bring down the cost of alternatives. That was the original plan. Yet what we are voting on today will do precisely the reverse: raise the cost for me and my constituents. I wonder how the Minister can justify that at a time of difficulty for so many of our constituents with the cost of living. If this industry is as attractive to the private sector as he says it is, why does it need the subsidy in the first place?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I do not mean to be difficult, but the Minister has not answered all the questions I posed—not least about the assumptions of the 16:1 leverage, which is apparently the big bonus coming in. I also do not know whether it is appropriate for us to vote on what is effectively an open-ended budget. Fundamentally, the impact I am most worried about is the one on my constituents—that I am not going to be able to tell them how much this will cost them; that is quite a significant hole in the Government’s argument. I am not aware of other statutory instruments where we vote for an open-ended budgetary allocation that our constituents will have to pay for, whether they like it or not. I have time this afternoon. If you, Ms Jardine, want to suspend the sitting while the Minister goes and finds the answers to those questions, I am quite happy for that to happen. It seems to me disrespectful for us to rattle through something that will have an impact quite soon on people’s electricity bills.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I was trying to save time; I can intervene more if the Minister wants.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can my hon. Friend give us his views as a practitioner on something that has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which is the usefulness of juries in protecting the institution of the judiciary? At the moment, if there is a string of sentencing that the Government or politicians do not like, there is not a lot they can do about it. If it is judges who are handing out those sentences, they will come under direct political attack, as we unfortunately see from time to time. The distance and insulation that a jury gives is not just a protection for the citizen, but a protection for the judiciary and its ongoing integrity.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a strong point about the administrative burden, but does he agree that the most burdensome element would probably be the restrictions placed on ammunition? In particular, individual licence holders would have a limit on the amount of ammunition they could own at any one time. I think something like 250 million cartridges are sold every year in the UK, and that would all have to be recorded and auditable; there would have to be an audit trail and probably an inspection regime to ensure that people were not buying or acquiring more than their limit. The administration of that would involve enormous numbers of people and probably result in the end in the acquisition of a huge computer system at vast cost, just to track something that is not at the moment identified as a problem.