Kit Malthouse MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Subjective.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree about the primacy of autonomy, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the status quo and the many stories that we have heard about individuals who took their lives but kept it secret from their families, whether by going to Switzerland or by doing it in a horrible way in lonely circumstances, a regulated atmosphere would makes it more likely that people will talk to their family about what their death will be like and, as we have learned from overseas, make arrangements for their family to be around them, or at least to say goodbye, as they move into that process? At the moment, because this area is unregulated, way more people do it in secret than need to.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I think we all know, the Government are likely to adjourn the debate on the Bill. Will my hon. Friend’s case be made if the case for adjournment is that the Minister commits that he will go and do these things anyway, and therefore the legislation is unnecessary?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not convinced that the guidance created by this Bill will be any more authoritative than that created by the NSPCC or by Internet Matters. The point I was making was not necessarily that the guidance is going to be pivotal, but that we need to get to a critical mass of observance before guidance is likely to have any impact. The original Bill was likely to do that, not least through the ban in schools, which created a nucleus of clear space for children that could be translated into homes. Many Members may have heard on the BBC this morning a short piece on the Fulham boys school, which has an absolute ban on even bringing a smartphone to school. That ban during the school period has resulted in the periods before and after school also being phone-free, and therefore much more social and beneficial to those pupils.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could give us guidance as to whether we actually have the right Minister responding to this Bill. If there were negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) about the Bill, one would expect the Minister who had conducted those negotiations, and who was therefore able to speak to the decisions that have been made, to appear at the Dispatch Box. Have we got the right person?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend vividly illustrates the problem with this kind of collective action and peer pressure. Has she reflected on the fact that it is not just the addictive nature of the application that is pulling in our kids, but the fact that they are free, and therefore everybody is encouraged to get them? We then get 100% coverage, and it is very hard to deny them to our child, if they will be the only child without.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would be willing to accept the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement if this were advice to schools, but it is not; it is advice to parents and carers. If there were going to be authoritative advice for schools, as well as other organisations that have charge of children—scout troops, children’s clubs, and other publicly funded organisations that look after children—I would have said, “Possibly,” even though there is to be a 12-month delay before the CMO tells us stuff we already know, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pointed out. The second step is for the Government to publish a plan for research within 12 months. That is not the conclusion of research, and there is no time limit—just a plan, a vague aspiration that we should have a plan, with no commencement, no sense of budget and no idea of when it might come. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has been sold a cosmetic pup. The third and final point is that the Government have to publish this “assessment”—whatever that may be—which, as far as I can see, is fundamentally to tell us something we already know, and which the hon. Gentleman has illustrated extremely vividly. We should all be furious about the delay and prevarication that is being injected into what could have been a huge step forward for parents and children.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to come on to that later, but my hon. Friend is completely right.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady says, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) has done an enormous amount of work, and it is obviously desirable for the Government to act in the face of evidence. Does she think that the Bill, as negotiated with the Government, constitutes action?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In his negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), he will have consulted and taken direction from No. 10. One of the concerns, given that he has instituted an investigation into the impact of UK legislation on American tech firms, is that President Trump might be upset if we were to take these kinds of steps. How much of that has been a consideration in him effectively filleting this Bill?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I also attended events that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pulled together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strong characteristic that came out of all of them was deep and profound anger among parents about what has been allowed to develop?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said at the start of my speech, I lament the dithering and delay by the previous Government, too. There were attempts by Back Benchers—and I was one for the last two years of the Government—to change the Online Safety Bill to take exactly these sort of measures. That was rebuffed by Ministers at that stage, and I regret that completely. To me, this is a national, if not international, emergency, about which we are being far too passive and complacent. I am not necessarily making a political point about this; it is about the weight of Government and, frankly, the weight and influence of big tech against the health and welfare of our children. That applies to Governments of all stripes in all countries across the world. It is not just we in this Chamber who should be furious. There are plenty of people out there in the country who should be furious, because two key things were promised in the original Bill. The first was an absolute school ban. All Members will know that when they go to visit schools, one of the features coming through strongly when we talk to headteachers is the increase in parental aggression towards schools. The source of conflict at the school gate is around all sorts of issues, not least the use of phones in schools. By advocating a complete blanket ban on phones in schools, we would be removing at one stroke a source of conflict between parent and teacher, as well as at the same time creating completely clear space for those kids to concentrate on their education. In school upon school across the country, they are bringing in their own policies, often in the teeth of opposition, whether parental or from children. Their life is made immeasurably more difficult by not having an absolute ban. The second thing that was promised and the second reason why we should be furious was the raising of the digital age of consent. By not including that in the Bill, we are consenting to those tech companies—as they have admitted in meetings in the run-up to this Bill—using children’s data to addict them to their services. We know that happens, and we see it happening. Anybody who has a teenage child and has tried desperately to move them off from cradling this precious phone at the dinner table or even from watching TV at the same time will see how they cannot get away from their phone and will realise the addictive nature. The fact that neither of those two steps is now in the Bill is, I am afraid, deeply lamentable. It feels to me as though the Government have capitulated to big tech. I had a look online to see—I am not casting aspersions—but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us in his remarks what meetings he had with big tech companies in the run-up to this Bill, and whether he has consulted or spoken to them. [ Interruption. ] The Minister is indicating zero, and that is useful to know, but I cannot then understand why the Government have pressured the new Member for Whitehaven and Workington to produce what is, frankly, a cosmetic pup, betraying our children and capitulating to big tech. I am afraid that this Bill is a shell of what it could have been, and as a result is yet another missed opportunity to improve the lives of our young people.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), from the far and beautiful north-west, has made an extremely strong case for the original Bill that he envisaged bringing before this House. I am afraid that today I will speak not to celebrate progress, but to lament the gutting of what could have been a landmark Bill. Sadly, this Government, like the last—notwithstanding the Online Safety Act 2023—have dithered, diluted and capitulated, and I am afraid that what remains is a hollowed-out gesture and an opportunity missed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the evidence is strong, the damage is profound and the public support is overwhelming. Documentary after documentary details the significant damage being done to our young people on a daily basis. Parent after parent in millions of homes across the land is screaming for help and assistance from the Government. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we are allowing smoking for the brain in our youngest children, with the long-term impact that that will have. I am afraid to say that in the face of all that overwhelming evidence and momentum, the hon. Gentleman has been done over in bringing forward this Bill. When we look at what we are presented with, as I said, we have nothing more than a gesture. The first point is that the CMO should bring forward guidance. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, there is already plenty of guidance out there for parents—the NSPCC has online guidance, as does Internet Matters. Lots of organisations, including schools themselves, are issuing guidance for parents. In truth, the CMO producing guidance within 12 months will be no more effective than those organisations have been, and possibly less. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, we are dealing with a collective action issue. An organisation can issue guidance, and a small percentage of parents may pick up that guidance and observe it, but if the percentage is below 20%, so strong is the peer pressure and so addictive is what we are dealing with that those parents end up in screaming matches with their teenage children on a daily basis.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My interpretation of what the hon. Member for Spen Valley said is that, as long as the service is available on the NHS, it is up to me whether I go private. In such circumstances, I could have it on the NHS if I really wanted. If I chose to go private, as I might if I were having a baby at the Portland hospital or cosmetic surgery at King Edward VII’s hospital in Marylebone, why would my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire want to know the private arrangement between me and my physician?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mrs Harris. I do not think that the amendment is actually about qualifications or training. It is about the removal of certain assessments.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Maybe I was not clear: it depends on the disease. For example, the median survival range for pancreatic cancer is six to 12 months, because it does not exhibit symptoms; people only learn very late that they have it, and that is why the normal survival curve is quite a short one. We need to bear that in mind. We also need to remember that the more we extend the periods of reflection, the longer people will have to live with the fear of what their death will be like, and with the nervousness about whether they will be allowed to control their own death—we are granting permission here. If I have to wait 42 days, that is 42 days out of whatever I might have left—perhaps 120 days, if I am lucky—that I am spending concerned about whether I am going to die in a particular way. To me, that seems crazy. Two of the amendments propose extending the 48-hour period to seven days. These are people who have been told they are going to die within a month. They have less than 30 days to deal with their affairs, deal with their children, talk to their family and decide what they are going to do, and the amendments propose that for seven days of that, they will have to contemplate their fear of death, rather than rush it through. It is rushing it through in 48 hours—reflecting the fact that they are going to die. The misunderstanding is most illustrated by the fact that amendment 314 proposes that, with the extension to seven days, there should be a mandatory referral to palliative care. With a month to go, these people are by definition already being palliated. The idea that somehow they are just waltzing up, unattended to, with a month to go, and that the NHS is going to say, “Actually, we’re not going to do anything to help you” fundamentally misunderstands what disease is like at the end of life. I am afraid that I vehemently oppose these amendments. The balance in the Bill is exactly right, and I hope that the Committee will agree. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Bambos Charalambous.)

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We have to strike a balance here. The point I am making is that, within an envelope of six months, 42 days is far too long, so I am afraid that I flatly oppose the amendments. They are based on a fundamental misunderstanding: the idea that people will just show up at six months, that their disease progression will be linear, and that they will then take the decision immediately, the moment they finish the reflection period. I can tell hon. Members that the entire six months, from the moment someone gets a six-month diagnosis, will be a reflection period.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Scanning back through my experience of the health service, I do not remember ever having to show my ID, whatever the procedure or medical service. I do not remember showing ID to witness the birth of my children or my wife having to show her ID. I am not sure that is common in the health service. Why would we introduce it for this? I can go in and have a heart bypass and not be asked to show my ID. My assumption is that often people will have been—

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise briefly to oppose all four amendments, which seem to completely ignore the reality of what it is like to receive a terminal diagnosis and then die. In truth, from the moment someone is told that they have some horrible disease that is likely to kill them, their entire life becomes a contemplation or reflection on their mortality, frankly, and on the options that might be available to them. Although we have sought to strike a balance in the Bill by having periods of reflection between the various steps, we have to reflect on the fact that people will be thinking about these things all the time anyway. Although we might be going through the motions and hoping that they seek assistance and advice during that period, I guarantee that it will already be in the forefront of their minds. These amendments—like so many from the hon. Lady from the beautiful city of York, the hon. Member for York Central—operate on the basis that people will show up at six months, enter the process at six months, do their three weeks of contemplation and then immediately take their lives, which is simply unrealistic and hardly ever going to happen. The vast majority of people will have been wrestling with their disease for months and often years before they get to the six-month period. If they are diagnosed with less than six months to go, which happens quite frequently, as we discussed in relation to pancreatic cancer yesterday, they will be immediately thinking not just about what their death will be like, but about the things they have to get done in that period—spending time with their family, the people they want to say goodbye to, the arrangements they want to make and the things they want to complete before they leave us. Imposing on people these arbitrary periods of reflection—the ones in the Bill are arbitrary, too—has to be balanced against the notion that these people have other things to do, and a hell of a lot more to think about than the bureaucracy we are trying to put in place. The other thing to bear in mind, which the amendments do not take account of, is that disease progression is very rarely linear. I am sure the medics will tell us that there is often a period where a person thinks they are going to be okay, and then suddenly they fall off a cliff towards the end. Anybody who has been close to somebody with advanced cancer will know that they can be perfectly well and functioning until the last couple of weeks, or even days, before they suddenly decline and die. We need to design a system that satisfies the requirement for reflection, but also lets these people do what they need to do. Although the hon. Member for Bradford West says that the amendments do not extend the amount of reflection time by that much, what in total they double it. It goes from 21 days to 42 days, which is a very significant proportion of the time that those people will have left to themselves—to sit, think, wait and go through the bureaucratic process. What most people will want to do is go through the process and secure permission, then take their time and think about what they want to do. They want to get on with their lives and to enjoy what is left because they lose the fear of what their ultimate end is going to be. Then, some weeks or months later, they can make the decision, if they wish to, to take their own lives, and we know that about a third do not because they are in palliative care.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to be clear, because the hon. Lady and I have exchanged views on this issue: my recollection from reading the briefing—I am happy to go back to it—is that, in those nine cases, the girls were found not to have capacity, but the judge then took the decision not to force-feed them because force-feeding them was likely to be threatening to their health and might precipitate their deaths. I do not think it is quite right to say that the judges put them on a palliative pathway. They declined to force-feed them on the basis that they thought it was in their best interests and that force-feeding them might actually precipitate their deaths.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  They did not have capacity.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, I do not think if someone is donating an organ that they do actually have to see a psychiatrist; they have to see somebody who is an appropriately trained assessor from the Human Tissue Authority. To me, that sounds equivalent to the second doctor in our process—someone who is appropriately trained to assess patients and what they need to do. This talk of it having to be a qualified registered psychiatrist, compared with an organ donation, is incorrect.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can my hon. Friend not see that, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, the amendment is based on what could be construed as an offensive assumption: that doctors otherwise might or would? Effectively, it is the legislative equivalent of the “When did you stop beating your wife?” question.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. To give us fair warning, if the Committee votes the amendment down, how will he portray that publicly? Will he say to the public that the Committee has voted for doctors to harm other patients?