Luke Evans MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the Minister cannot commit to a financial spending envelope now, but is it not the case that the mental health investment standard is something that the Government could commit to?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but he has also missed the point. He gives me the opportunity to point out that one way in which the previous Government dealt with this issue was by bringing forward the mental health investment standard, under which the proportion of spending on mental health had to mirror the spending on physical conditions. That was starting to lead to real change. Alas, under this Government, there is a concern that the standard has not been met. We know that the proportion of mental health spending has fallen under this Government, according to the written ministerial statement that they put out. That leads me on nicely to the point that I wanted to raise: how will we fund the models that are coming forward? That is the crux of the matter that people outside the House will be looking at; it is a direct question, and it is the only one that I have in this debate. We on this side of the House have raised this issue in the debates we have had on both palliative care and mental health, and I raised it with the Minister only last week. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has raised this question again and again. Are the Government committed to the investment standard or not? Is it something that they have dropped? The House and the wider public need to know, so that we can plan for service provision. If the Government are dropping it, that is on them, and they need to explain the reasons why they are doing so. Maybe there is alternative investment, but as a starting point, the investment standard will be crucial in dealing with the mental health challenge, which is growing despite the pandemic and all the investment that has already gone in.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have talked about roads and bridges throughout the duration of the Bill. We have now reached the end of the long road that was, of course, embarked on by Baroness May in 2018 with the independent Wessely report, which was the foundation of this legislation. It constitutes a cross-party, cross-departmental look at how we can improve the lives of people with the most serious mental health issues. I was pleased to hear the Minister start to talk about the difference between mental health and mental wellbeing. That is fundamental when it comes to dealing with our policies and how we will take the country forward, because while not everyone has a serious mental health problem, everyone has problems with their mental wellbeing. Ensuring that we have that distinction worked out will be vital to providing the right support for the right people in the right place, and, ultimately, that is what the Bill is dedicated to doing. I have talked in the House about why that is so important. This Bill, above all others, deals with the most vulnerable people in society—those who are seriously mentally unwell—so I am pleased that we have reached a stage at which we can take it forward and put it into law. I was also pleased to hear the Minister comment on the amendment from the other place, and the concerns raised by Baroness Berridge. I understand the points that he has tried to make and the clarifications that the Government have tried to introduce in relation to the amendment. He has said that he will look at the code of conduct in respect of the seriously difficult positions in which mental health professionals might find themselves during an evening of dealing with a parent who is contesting with a child the question of who is to be the nominated person. I am glad that the Government are looking at the code of practice, and we will not be dividing the House tonight. That being said, as with the 10-year plan that the Government have brought forward, there is a synergy here. The synergy is this: Members on both sides of the House agree with the thrust of the 10-year plan and this Bill, but the problem is that there is no delivery chapter. That was the Opposition’s concern when the Government were taking the Bill forward. As the Minister conceded in Committee, it will be a challenge, but without a delivery plan it becomes very difficult.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for stepping in on that basis. We have had plenty of chances to debate this Bill, both in Committee and many times in the mental health debates that I am partial to. We could go through why the last Government changed the interventions of NHS England and brought in integrated care boards to allow for a joined-up structure to be put in place. We now see a new iteration coming forward but, yet again, we do not know how much it will to cost to get rid of NHS England. We do not know the redundancy packages for the ICBs and how much they will cost. That is fundamental. One thing we do know is that, as the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the change to the investment standard alone will cost the sector £300 million. That is investment that could have made a difference to mental health provision. I do not want to get into the heated politics any further, and I do not want to delay the House any further this evening, but the Government’s position on the mental health investment standard is crucial when it comes to delivering this Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach, and for the way in which he has taken ideas forward and looked through the Bill in fine detail. I know he cares deeply about getting this right, as do many Members of this House. It is imperative to ensure that compassionate, modern care is delivered to those who need it most when it comes to dealing with serious mental health conditions.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  The old adage we often hear is that there are two certainties in life—taxes and death. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about the former and very little time speaking about the latter, even though we know it will affect us; I have argued that both as a doctor and in this House since I was elected. I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. It is so important and it will affect all of us. We are informed by the work of our constituents, so I also put on record my thanks to Mike for his incredible story and for the memory of Sarah that he has brought to this place, at the highest level, so that we can have this debate about how we can improve the condition of those in their time of greatest need. In the few minutes I have, I will distil this debate into three areas: first, the location of mental health care, secondly, the workforce and, thirdly, the plan. On the first point—I have raised this with the Minister before—hospices often provide a lot of mental health support, but they are struggling. Many are closing beds and many are in deficit. Together for Short Lives estimates that the national insurance contributions increase costs an average hospice at least £130,000. After a previous debate on hospices, I asked the Government in a letter of 10 November, to which I have not yet had a response, whether they will consider an impact assessment on the state of hospices. The National Audit Office’s report into hospices states: “DHSC and NHS England do not know what proportion of the total amount of palliative and end-of-life care provided in England is delivered by the independent adult hospice sector, and therefore how reliant they are on the sector.” That is an important point in understanding the fabric and make-up of provision, as well as the postcode lottery in provision, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out. If we want to improve provision, we need to understand what is there in the first place. To do so, we need to provide a workforce, as I also said in the letter. A letter I received from the Government on the topic of hospices stated: “This summer, we will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will build over the next decade so that patients can be treated on time again.” I raised this issue in the November debate. We are now into December, and winter, and we still do not know when the NHS workforce plan will come forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It is especially important given that, in the last Budget, the Government cut the proportion of spending on mental health care. At the time, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said: “It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.” The previous Government brought in the mental health investment standard, but it is not clear whether this Government are adhering to it or keeping it in place. It will be important in ensuring that we have the investment to provide both the places and the workforce. I welcome the bringing forward of the palliative care framework, which Opposition Members and many others on both sides of the House have asked for. I am pleased that the Government have set that out, because it will be the framework that provides the care we need across the country. It is also timely, given that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is going through Parliament. An amendment to the Bill, which was nodded through with support from both sides of the House, will ensure that there is a financial plan for what palliative care should look like. It will be imperative that considerations about mental health care for the terminally ill are involved in that framework. In his November debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of a 24/7 palliative care helpline, which many across the House and many charities have asked for. In the debate—before we had heard about the framework—I asked whether that would be looked at as part of the framework, because that 24/7 point of contact could form part of the mental health support that families get when they are struggling and in their time of need. I would be grateful if the Government would consider that. I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but I would also be grateful if he could set out how the palliative care framework will be put together. Who are the stakeholders? How can people like Mike and interested Members contribute to ensuring that we get it right? We want this House to do it only once; we want to get the framework right for England, and hopefully across the home nations as well, so it will be incredibly important that all stakeholders are involved. We in this House need to ensure that others can hold what those who are struggling find too heavy to hold. That is the essence of what we are trying to do, whichever side of the House we are on or whether, like Mike, we are outside this House. We are trying to make sure that when someone is in their time of need, and when they feel the burden is too heavy, they can hand it on to someone else, who will help to carry that load.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is indeed right to say that there was an injection of cash, but the proportion of funding being spent on mental health was actually cut. The written ministerial statement is very clear that that proportion went from 8.78% to 8.71%, which the royal college said was about £300 million of investment. Can he confirm from the Dispatch Box—if he cannot, he can write to me later—whether the Government are still committed to the mental health investment standard, or is that commitment going to change? Currently, it is unclear whether they are still committed.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution”, —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.] then went around the studios at the weekend saying, “I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”. She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on keeping one of their manifesto commitments, because their manifesto said, “Change”—it is just that no one realised that would be all that was left in the British public’s pocket when it came to it. I would like to give a second congratulations to the Chancellor, because I gather that she has won an award: best Dubai estate agent for 2025. We know that 250,000 people have now emigrated from Britain because of the impacts of her Budget. I expect she is now going for the next award in 2026. More importantly, this seems to be a Labour Government who are caught between trying to do things on purpose or by mistake. At the last Budget, they were up front that they were going to tax education for the first time. They did not realise that what they were actually going to do was put up taxes on hospices, pharmacies and GPs—that was all missed. Now a new Budget has come forward, and I call it the “ball of wool Budget”. Why? Because for the first time in history we have had this ball of wool unravel time and again, for weeks upon weeks, until it was finally spun into a yarn that we were supposed to believe, but the British public have seen right through it. It is unparliamentary to use the term “liars”, but I think I can use “Pinocchio”, and I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may well fall into that category. Rest assured, people in Leicestershire and up and down the country see right through this Labour Government. They see what this Budget was all about: trying to placate the Back Benches, and how? It is through £40 billion of tax rises in the first Budget and £26 billion of tax rises in this one. Don’t just take my word for it, because even if, before the last Budget, we believed in the fictional black hole, which was then disproved by the OBR, the Chancellor went on Sky News after that Budget and said: “We’ve now wiped the slate clean… It’s now on us…we’ve set the spending envelope on the course for this Parliament, we don’t need to come back for more. We’ve done that now”. She went on: “there’s no need to come back with another Budget like this, we will never need to do that again.” Yet here we are with £26 billion more tax on the British public, yet we still have weak growth, high inflation and no living within our means. The Chancellor has even broken her own manifesto commitment, which she has admitted, because in the 2024 Budget she said from the Dispatch Box: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous Government.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Yet, one year on, she said from the Dispatch Box last week: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution.” —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.] I need to tell the Chancellor that being asked for a contribution is not the same as being told, which is what this Government are doing. What would happen if someone tried to refuse, saying, “No, I’ve paid my fair share”? My constituents say, “I’ve done enough,” but they cannot just say no. They will get a fine or, worse, a criminal record and go to jail. So let us deal with the semantics and say what it is: a naked choice to increase tax on the British public. In the run-up to the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was prophetic in what he said. We were not listened to, and I understand all the reasons why. He said, “A Labour Government will tax your holiday, your house, your GP, your pharmacy, your flights, your car, your pension, your savings”—have I missed anything? They have taxed charities, and even milkshakes—tax, tax, tax. The public have seen what a Labour Government have done. They were told about it, and they have seen it twice in a Budget. When it comes to the next one, I hope they will remember that.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whether it was the reference to either being a liar or Pinocchio, I withdraw them both.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to making decisions about poverty, it is difficult, so I would be grateful to understand the Secretary of State decision to change the winter fuel payments, which the Government’s own analysis said put 100,000 people into relative poverty and 50,000 people immediately into absolute poverty. Those are decisions that he and his Government made because they were concerned about the finances of the country. The Opposition now have similar concerns with regard to the child benefit cap changes, and yet the Government have made a different decision. Could he explain the reasons why there is a difference?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I have the automotive industry in my area too, and electric vehicles are really important. The implementation of the pay-per-mile change for electric vehicles is causing huge anxiety, as is the impact on the second-hand car market. We do not understand how this measure will work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear on this, as it will have a big impact over the next two to three years while it is discussed?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Electric and plug-in car drivers in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire have woken up angry and anxious this morning. They were told to do the right thing by getting electric cars, yet the Chancellor is going around this morning saying that they will be charged per mile and that the money will go into improving roads. The Leader of the House, a learned man, will know that that link was broken in 1937. There is some consternation about how the charges will affect the second-hand car market, whether vehicles will need trackers, and what happens when charges are passed over. Those are serious considerations for my constituents, who are trying to understand how the scheme will work. May we have a debate in Government time on how the electric vehicle charges will work?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?

• 25 Nov 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to hospital provision, the Conservatives believe that we should continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times. We believe the Government should not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds; we should continue to make use of private-sector capacity to treat NHS patients where available. Does the Minister agree?

• 25 Nov 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear that the Minister does, given that it is her current policy. The last time the Government brought in private finance, they brought in the private finance initiative, which brought in £13 billion of investment. The problem was that it cost the taxpayer a whopping £80 billion, and hospitals are still paying decades on. This time around, will the Government give a cast-iron guarantee and complete confidence to the public that this is not Labour’s version of PFI mark 2?

• 25 Nov 2025 · NHS Waiting Lists · Hansard source

  More

  What’s the answer?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by finishing where I left off in the main Chamber in the debate during Suicide Prevention Month. I talked about a TikTok meme that was going around about where men go, and who they turn to, when they are at their lowest. The answers in that video are all “no one”: “No one cares”; “There’s no one”; “It’ll be used against me.” I want to speak to the people in that video, because after I mentioned it, I received literally hundreds of messages, first to thank me for raising it, secondly to thank me for raging, because people are not listening, and thirdly to say, “Well, people don’t care.” Actually, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the Members from across the parties in the Chamber today do care. This is an ongoing conversation that we are having, and action has been taken by previous Governments and is being taken by this Government. We must get out the message that things are happening and that people are talking about it and are interested in it. This is being looked at and discussed at the highest possible level to bring in changes to make the world a little bit better. It is thanks to the pressure that we apply in this place that such changes are made, and I think it is important to get that on the record. When it comes to men’s health, I am very keen to point out that this is not an “or” issue—it is not about women or men, but about women and men. That is particularly the case for mental health and mental wellbeing because woman partners often spot the issue first. Women are the advocates we all need when we are having this discussion, and it is important to make sure that is on the record too. The last Government brought forward the women’s health strategy, and we now have an allied men’s health strategy. They are not in competition, but work in conjunction, which I think is important. I followed up September’s debate on suicide prevention with a letter to the Ministers to raise a few points, and I think it would be prudent for me to use my time to press them home a bit further. The first point was about the £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which was brought in to deliver specific support for 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. The fund has now run out, and after that was raised, the Minister for Care responded in answer to a written question: “There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.” However, in April he followed up by saying: “We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.” In my letter, I asked whether we could have “some details on the basis behind this decision” as well as “what alternate provision…is being provided” and when we would hear about the evaluation. I was lucky enough to get a response on 13 November from the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for mental health. She addressed that point, but she simply said: “As previously stated, the Department is evaluating the impact of the Suicide Prevention Grant Fund from 2023 to 2025, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. The evaluation will be completed in due course and learnings from that evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.” That is welcome news, but we have now gone from April to November, and I would like to understand when the evaluation will come, because it will be imperative in deciding how we take forward these services. In that light, I welcome the men’s health strategy, particularly its emphasis on suicide. However, as my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), pointed out, the £10 million over two years seems to dwarf the £3.6 million across three years. That is a concern for the Opposition, especially when we look at how it is likely to be delivered, which is through the charity sector, as the national insurance changes have already taken a massive toll. For example, Mind has said that that tax increase will cost it £250,000, so its £1 million across a year suddenly starts to be whittled away. I am keen to understand how the Government will square that circle. That leads me to my last point, which we have raised in the House before—I have certainly raised it both with the last Government and now with this one—on the issue of representation for men and boys. Before the election, the last Government were looking at having a men’s health ambassador. In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys. That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river. We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to hear about the Together Against Suicide partnership with the Premier League, but will the Minister explain how it works? Having looked at the details, it appears to be run in conjunction with the Samaritans. Is extra funding coming from the Premier League or from the Government to run the scheme? If the Samaritans provide the signposting, how are they being supported? In essence, it looks like an area to people together. Is that correct?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  I try to take a positive outlook. The one thing the pandemic did was shine a spotlight on the likes of long covid and ME, and I know from my medical career how difficult that can be. I would like to thank Sajid Javid, who in 2022 announced the plan for ME, and I congratulate the Minister because she brought it to fruition on 22 July 2025. There are some similarities between the NHS 10-year plan and the ME plan: the ME delivery plan is fantastic, and a lot of people agree with it, but, importantly, there has been a lack of delivery. Action for ME has said: “The Plan also lacks clear accountability structures with no mechanisms to measure impact or deadlines to hit. We are concerned that despite this well-meaning Plan being published, it will have no material impact on the historically stigmatised and ignored ME community. Action for ME wants to work with MPs, Ministers and Officials to improve its implementation.” It went on to say that the delivery plan on ME/CFS fails to include a “strategic approach” to ME research. However, that was not the only group to say so; the ME Association said: “There is no clear ambition or strategy to drive consistent implementation of the NICE guideline recommendations” across ICBs. It went on to say: “Severe and very severe ME receives minimal attention, despite known risks during hospital admissions”. It also said: “Several of the Plan’s own deadlines have already passed, and it is unclear what progress has been made.” In the short time that I have, I want to focus my questions on two areas: action and accountability. The first concerns the questions that those living with ME will have, particularly when it comes to the changes around the Department for Work and Pensions and what that will look like in the light of the imminent Timms review. I would be grateful to understand what plans the Government have for both Departments to discuss what this will look like, given the scale of the problems facing the 400,000-plus people with ME/CFS in this country. Secondly, turning to the actual plan, we need to look at what actions will be delivered. I am keen to look at the section called “After publication of the FDP”, because it goes on to say that “we will monitor the actions included in it. The DHSC secretariat will continue to engage with the Task and Finish Group in an appropriate form as required”. Given the debate today, is that required, and what form will it take? The document also goes on to say that a “sub-group will be created to focus on improving care for those with ME/CFS.” Has that group been created, and how many times has it met? It further states: “We recognise the needs of those with ME/CFS and we remain dedicated to developing our approach as new research emerges and as we seek further engagement.” Could I press the Minister on what that engagement is? Who is it with, and what does it look like? At the end of the day, there is a plan here and we do agree with it, but it is the actions and accountability within it that are truly going to make a difference. ME may challenge the body, but it never diminishes a person’s worth or their hope that they carry. That is critical. When we have such a great plan, it is the action that is going to take it forward.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  Given that NHS England is due to be abolished, who will take that on?