Luke Evans MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I have taken two interventions already. My worry is about what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that since the Chancellor went to China, decisions have been made about the Chagos islands, for example, or British Steel and £1 billion—what is going on there? A spy case has now been dropped, and there is the possibility of a super-embassy and even ID cards. My constituents are coming to me seeing a running theme.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Is that an assertion of fact from the Committee’s report?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Prisoner Release Checks · Hansard source

  More

  There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry?

• 21 Oct 2025 · NHS Trusts: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  With reports of over £1 billion in costs for integrated care board redundancies and the chief executive officer of NHS England warning that services could have to move to plan B, could the Secretary of State set out what plan B is?

• 21 Oct 2025 · NHS Trusts: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but waiting lists have risen for three successive months now, doctors are on strike, GPs are in formal dispute with the Government, and the ICBs are cutting 50% of their staff and do not have £1 billion to pay for it, all while the NHS 10-year plan has been published but with no delivery chapter. When will the Secretary of State come to the House with the delivery plan for the NHS 10-year plan?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to the amendments, starting with amendments 1 and 7, and take a canter through my position, as my constituents will have an interest in that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked the important question why. Amendments 1 and 7 try to address the most important issue: context. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, our signing this deal does not make sense. The Government have been weak in presenting the evidence for why they think we should sign the deal. I wrote to the Government to ask them to explain, and I was able to pull their response apart on Second Reading, one step at a time, explaining why their reasons do not fit. Context is really important. I thought that the deal did not make sense, but factoring in the collapsed spy trial, the billion pounds provided to the steel factories, the pending decision on the embassy—yes, maybe no—and the change in the language used around the subject of China, we need to get to the heart of what is going on. The amendments are an attempt to do that in the name of transparency, which is hugely important.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This issue has been disputed. Is it not the point that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea cannot pass judgment on sovereignty because of the ruling that was made between Mauritius and the UK on marine protection back in 2015? That was under annexe VII, which was tried and tested. Britain was found wanting on that, because we had not properly talked through what should happen with the Mauritians. What the Mauritians actually wanted to do was to open it for fishing. How can we assure the protection for this area? That is why we need to amend the Bill.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my learned right hon. Friend has pipped me to the punch. That is exactly a good example of the kind of sites we are worried about. What has that meant? We have taken on British nationals overseas and invited them in to give them security, because they feared for political interference and, worse still, for the safety of themselves and their families. We are not doing our duties if we are not thinking about these things, because, as we have already seen, it is hard enough to predict things in two or three years’ time, let alone 100 years. At that point, as it is written, we will get the best offer, but it will be only offered to us. We could be outstripped by China, Russia or a BRIC country in the future—we do not know; it is 100 years away—and there is no mechanism to solve that. Worse still, Mauritius could simply say, “We do not want a base here at all,” and there is nothing in this Bill that would stop that. The Government repeatedly have been asked those questions, and they cannot set that out. That is why new clause 2 asks for those impacts to be considered and looked at. New clause 3 would move the marine protected area. I will return to a point I made earlier. The fact is that when Britain and the United Kingdom were taken under UNCLOS in 2010 by Mauritius under annex VII, we wanted to implement protections in the area. Mauritius felt that that impeded on its ability to make its own decisions, which the court found in favour of, and it also wanted to fish in the area. Hang on a second! We are putting weaknesses into this Bill when we know that Mauritius has set its intent. I hope it has moved on, as the debate on climate has, but this new clause would be a guarantee to ensure that that has been thought about. Let me turn to new clause 5. I appreciate the Minister stepping up, because there has already been debate about the Peros Banhos islands, and he has said there are no concerns that they will be leased to China. Let us be real: this Bill has only just come out—the ink is barely dry—and we already hear stories. Many journalists have already talked about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, but that shows the examples of what could and will come without paying attention to the security and the geopolitical and strategic advantage that these islands have, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about. All new clause 5 asks us to do is ensure that that is reported on and looked at. Again, there is a dereliction of duty by not having that reported. I could go on, because there are many more amendments, but the salient points in this debate have been made. All the amendments tabled in the names of Conservatives— and, to be fair, in the names of Members of many other Opposition parties—ask for one simple thing: transparency and explanation. They ask for a simple way of seeing what the legal advice does and where the financial outcome comes.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to find out that the National Security Adviser does not speak to his deputy? [Interruption.]

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Bill, if there is no agreement, although we can be first offer, Mauritius can decide simply to close and fold the base, leaving it completely void, so there is no protection against that?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is making a powerful point. Is not part of the problem that we do not even know which budget the money is coming out of? That is the kind of simple question that the man or woman on the street would expect us to be able answer.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is nodding along, but there must be something wrong if the public and Opposition Members cannot simply understand the arguments for what is being put in place. We cannot see the wood for the trees. It is a Government’s duty to show those arguments, and I look forward to the Minister doing that in his response and putting these arguments to bed once and for all. Otherwise, the British public will not forgive him.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would be interested to hear an answer to that, as we have tried several times to get the Government to quantify whether China is a threat, a friend, an ally or a foe. Amendment 7 tries to look at “an analysis of the status of UK’s sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;”. From talking about this previously, we know that UNCLOS, which is often used as the example of why we have to secede the territory, cannot preside over sovereignty, as was said in 2015 when dealing with the marine protected area. We have also heard the Government stress the importance of the International Telecommunications Union, saying that the issue is to do with spectre and spies. However, we know that there is a carve-out, because we heard about that on Second Reading. That leaves us with the International Court of Justice, which is often held up as the key point. On Second Reading, I was taken by the fact that it is alleged that we have an opt-out under the Commonwealth, so I went away to have a quick look. On the ICJ website, as hon. Members can see, the “Declarations recognising the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory—United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” were published on 22 February 2017. I quote: “1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepts as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ln conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1987, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:”— these are critical points— “(i) any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful settlement; (ii) any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth;”. That is there in black and white. However, the Government have yet to mention that in any of debates or letters about their legal position. We need amendments 1 and 7 to be able to understand why the Government do not see that as a strong enough argument to hold up. This nonsense about whether or not there are negotiations is answered there too, because those declarations say: “any method of peaceful settlement”. Any good Government would try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner. I am surprised at that from a Labour party whose Members pride themselves on being trade unionists, who make a living from negotiating and trying to come to a solution without the matter going to a court. That is exactly what they should be doing, but the Conservatives are being chastised for trying to have a conversation to resolve the situation. The fact was that we did not come up with a deal because the deal was not good enough. The Labour Opposition moved into power and have now put forward this horrendous Bill that gives away power, but at what cost? They are not even going to try in court or use some of the simple arguments which I, as a doctor, have found after spending time researching. I am sure that in this great country we have many legal buffs that could put forward that argument, but if the government do not feel that it stands, they should come to this House and tell us why—put it in evidence, write it out and tell us all, and we will go quietly. However, we are not hearing or seeing that from this Government, which is why we need amendments 1 and 7. Turning to amendments 3, 4 and 6, as has been rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness it is clear that the Bill gives carte blanche to this Government, or any other, to do whatever they want. We may as well not even bother having a debate about the Bill—it is not worth the paper it is written on—because the Henry VIII powers mean that Ministers can do what they will, when they will without coming to Parliament. At least these amendments try to ensure some accountability of the Executive to this House, because this House should be making these decisions, especially given their magnitude. We have heard from the Government that it is a priceless base and we have heard from the Conservative Benches about its geopolitical and security importance. Should the House not be making decisions about what that looks like? New clause 1 talks about the payments. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he could give me any example, from any part of the world, of when we have dealt with sovereignty using net present value. He said it was in the Green Book, but that is for domestic sites and used by the Treasury to look at civil development. I hope the Minister has gone away and done some research, because I think he will find that there is not a precedent, as net present value is not the correct measure and is open to political interference. For example, we use 3.5% and America uses 7%. We can fudge the numbers to fit the narrative that we would like to set. There is one other problem. The explanatory notes stipulate only 30 years. Unless I have misquoted, this deal goes for 99 years, so what happens in the remaining 70 years? That is why new clause 1 would bring in a robust check to ensure that when the finances are paid out, we know exactly why we are paying, who we are paying and what we are paying for. Most importantly, we would know the mechanism of how the finances were calculated, because the Government still have not come to this place and set that out exactly. Let me turn to new clause 2. What happens at the end? I raised that as my final point when I spoke on Second Reading. We have heard about long-term security, but in this place we think only on a five-year cycle; this is a 99-year cycle. My biggest fear is that my children’s children’s children, if they are ever elected to this Parliament, will be having a debate in 99 years with the same issues about what happens. It is a dereliction of duty on our behalf in this House not to think things through.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister give any example worldwide where NPV has been used for sovereignty purposes?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s clarity, which he keeps talking about. On that basis, let me say this. The case collapsed. This is about leadership. He has seen all the evidence in public, and all the evidence in private. Was China spying on two Members of Parliament in this case—yes or no?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Healthcare: Bolton · Hansard source

  More

  Hearing Leah’s story was very concerning and upsetting. When it comes to further online access, one of GPs’ biggest concerns is about what to do with the emergencies that may come in through a computer at 6.20 pm as a result of that access, having to make that assessment when the system is supposed to be closing, and the ability to move GPs to take them away from face-to-face consultations to deal with online access. How will the Government square the circle of access versus patient safety? That is at the crux of the dispute.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Healthcare: Bolton · Hansard source

  More

  I too congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). She covered a huge amount within her allotted time. The only sadness is that we have only an hour, and I have only a couple of minutes to try to address many of her points. The biggest message that we take home today is that Bolton must not be left behind. The hon. Member has been exemplary in stepping forward and making that case. I would slightly and gently push back and say that I do not think that Bolton was left behind by the previous Government. The trajectory she is working towards is already there, if we look at examples of the investment that was made by the previous Government, most notably the £20 million, which made up part of the £40 million in levelling-up funding, for the medical college at the Royal Bolton Hospital, and listen to Professor Holmes, who said: “It is incredibly rewarding for us at the University to witness our flagship facility reach this important milestone of practical completion. It is a privilege to be home to one of the nation’s leading clinical skills facilities here in Greater Manchester and this is a key step in our aim to become a national centre of excellence for health.” On top of that, there was a £20 million investment in the elective care centre, which has opened with four theatres dealing with about 5,000 patients. The hon. Member for Bolton North East was right to pick up on the maternity and women’s health unit, which is really important. In 2023, we saw a £38 million investment to help the unit, and it will hopefully be done by 2027. I have no doubt that she will be there to wag the stick to make sure that it is. I hope that she and the Government will be successful in that. I want to tease out a couple of questions for the Government. The hon. Member stressed maternity, which is really important. At the general election, the Labour party made firm commitments on maternity services, so I ask the Minister: when will the national maternity safety ambitions be published, and will targets be set around the maternity mortality gap? What will be done to address it? The hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) both rightly raised the integration of system and service, which is also a concern on the Opposition side. We have seen top-down reorganisation, especially around integrated care boards, and I am sure the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership will have been asked to make reductions in its headcount. The problem is that the Government have not set out how they will pay for those redundancies, or what that shape will look like, so they are trying to make transformative change and looking internally. There is real concern about that among the Opposition, so I hope the Minister will be able to set out how much that will cost and whether the redundancy package will be coming forward, because we hear it could be up to £1 billion. As the chief executive of NHS England has said, if we do not hear something in the next few weeks, the NHS will have to turn to plan B—if there is a plan B. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out. Finally, on GPs, we also know that the Government have stated in the 10-year plan that GP leaders will be pivotal in shaping and delivering these new services and will be supported to do so with two new contracts from 2026. Of course, we have learned in the past couple of weeks that GPs have entered a formal dispute with the Government because of the contractual changes, so I would be grateful to understand what the Minister is doing—although it is not in her brief—and what her team are doing to try to pull it back from the brink and hopefully resolve some of the contractual issues, particularly when it comes to access. To close on a personal note, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East on her work as a manbassador. As someone who, since stepping into this House, has campaigned on mental and physical health for men and boys, I know it often gets left behind. I made that point on the Floor of the House only a couple of weeks ago, so it is fantastic that she is championing men and boys. We need advocates for both sexes, both ways round, when it comes to men’s and women’s health. It is not a competition; it is not one or the other—it is “and”, and she typifies that. No man or boy should be left behind, but nor should Bolton.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Jhoots Pharmacy · Hansard source

  More

  Only this weekend, the National Pharmacy Association chief executive, Henry Gregg, said that he is concerned that “reports of Jhoots Pharmacy branches across England failing patients risks damaging community pharmacy’s reputation and could imperil its ability to secure a good 2026-27 funding settlement.” Communities across the country have been left without functioning pharmacies. Doors have been locked without notice, patients have arrived to find no pharmacist, no prescriptions and no stock, and staff have gone unpaid and been threatened with the sack. Jhoots Pharmacy faces allegations of not paying wages, having premises repossessed and serious regulatory breaches. The General Pharmaceutical Council has already intervened several times, yet for many patients it is too late—they simply cannot get their medicines. This is not an isolated business failure; it exposes a deeper fragility in the community pharmacy network on which local people depend for basics and often lifesaving care. I have four questions for the Minister. First, when was NHS England first made aware of these closures, and has the Minister met the Jhoots leadership? If not, why not? If he did, what was the outcome? Secondly, has the Department assessed how many people have been left without local pharmacy access as a result of Jhoots’s actions, and what is the Minister doing to remedy this, considering it is happening across the country? He mentioned ICBs, but there are several involved. Thirdly, what mechanisms exist to ensure continuity of care when a contractor collapses or walks away? Again, he mentioned ICBs, but is there a national contingency plan? Finally, will the Government now review whether the current model, under which chains are expanding rapidly through acquisition and debt, is fit to safeguard community pharmacies in the long term? Linked to that, can the Minister definitively confirm that the funding settlement has not been compromised? The 10-year NHS plan states that it wants to move more care into the community, yet it is completely missing a delivery chapter on how to achieve that. At the same time, we have issues such as Jhoots. I hope the Minister will be taking steps to investigate this issue in its entirety and to safeguard against this type of incident happening again, and will spell out the delivery aspect of the 10-year plan.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. Those are the kind of cases that this amendment seeks to deal with. We have only to look at the tragic cases of Nicola Edgington and Valdo Calocane to see how escalating risk happens, with huge consequences for the families, patients and victims. When I raised this matter in Committee, the Minister gave a very thoughtful answer. He said that: “if any risk at all to public safety is perceived, that must be documented… It is a basic expectation of the professional management of a particular patient that any risk identified to public safety and protection must be in there.” I welcome that. With amendment 40, I am simply asking, if that is indeed the Government’s position, why not make it clear in the Bill? The Minister conceded in Committee that “I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on whether or not it should be in the Bill. I will come back to him on that, because I would be rather surprised if it were not made very clear somewhere that that is a basic expectation; if it were not, that would obviously need to be looked at, but I am reasonably confident that it is.” –– [ Official Report, Mental Health Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2025; c. 171.] Unfortunately, expected in practice is not the same as required in law. We know from past reviews that there is a gap in the risk assessment and that communication can be too inconsistent. Putting such a requirement in statute would not be bureaucracy; it would simply clarify that. The Minister may argue that it already exists in professional codes, in the Mental Health Act code of practice or even in risk management frameworks, but the statutory duty does not. Our amendment would put that duty squarely in the Bill. Talking of safety, I will turn to new clause 29, which would ensure that no child is placed on an adult mental health ward except in truly exceptional circumstances, and only when it is demonstrably in their best interests. The Government argue that guidance already covers that, but this guidance has no teeth; it can be ignored or inconsistently applied. Again, guidance without legal backing is too easily ignored. That was why the Joint Committee on Human Rights argued in its letter that this part of the Bill needs strengthening. The Minister also said that placing these safeguards in legislation would remove flexibility for clinicians in emergencies, but new clause 29 does allow for exceptional circumstances; it simply requires that they are justified, recorded and subject to oversight. Research from University College London found that there has been a 65% increase in the number of children and young people admitted to adult wards for mental health disorders, and this increase is sharpest among teenage girls with eating disorders. They are the most vulnerable, and they are the ones who bear the brunt of this.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health. I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached. Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy. The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [ Interruption. ] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach. The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health? We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously. For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We did not discuss this specifically in Committee, but I would be interested to know about the interaction between the independent mental health advocates, which are being expanded and which we all agreed with in Committee, and a new liaison service. I worry about the duplication. Will the hon. Member explain how that crossover would work in practice?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  When we last debated the Bill on Second Reading, I said that protecting someone’s freedom for their own safety is not a licence to own their life, but a duty to help them find it again. That principle still guides us today, because good intentions alone do not mend a troubled system. Compassion without competence is not care; it is sentiment without substance. On Second Reading, I spoke of bridges and rough roads, and of how resilience and recovery depend on the strength of the structures that carry people through their hardest times. Tonight, we return to that bridge. The question before us is not whether we believe in reform—after all, there is cross-party agreement on that—but whether the Government have built the foundations to make it stand. Warm words are plentiful, but the reality is that too many people are still falling through the gaps: detentions are still present, community services are stretched, and families are left navigating a maze of bureaucracy while waiting for help that may never come. We all know that reform cannot be delivered on aspiration alone. It requires a delivery plan, a workforce and a system capable of learning from its own mistakes. We know the chapter on delivery is missing from the 10-year NHS plan and there is further risk tonight that we miss another opportunity. After all, the principles in the Bill are the right ones. They are even on the face of the Bill—choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and treating the person as an individual—but those principles need power behind them and that power lies in delivery. This Report stage is our chance to turn those words into commitments. New clause 31 requires the Government to publish a fully costed delivery plan within 18 months of the Act passing into law, setting out how integrated care boards and local authorities will deliver adequate community services. Crucially, the plan must be developed through consultation with those who know best. That is vital, because although we support the many aims of the Bill, the Government already have a pretty dismal record of announcing reforms without any credible plan to deliver them. Let us take the ongoing NHS reorganisation. In March, Ministers made a surprise announcement of the abolition of NHS England and its absorption into the Department of Health and Social Care, yet six months on they cannot say what it will cost, how many staff will be lost or how it will be paid for. The Health Service Journal reports growing confusion inside the system and warnings from NHS leaders that the lack of clarity risks paralysing decision making. Written questions to the Government simply receive the answer “some upfront cost in the millions” yet independent estimates say the cost is over £1 billion. Even the chief executive, Sir Jim Mackey, points out that the Treasury must agree funding for integrated care board redundancies within weeks or the NHS will have to turn to a plan B. The same chaos is playing out across integrated care boards, with local leaders warning that there is already destabilisation due to the 50% reductions. If Ministers cannot manage their own top-down reorganisation, why should anyone believe they can deliver a more ambitious overhaul of mental health services without a clear costed plan, especially when waiting lists have risen in the last three consecutive months? This Labour Government have already cut the proportion of spending on mental health. As Dr Lade Smith CBE, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said at the time: “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.” Going on, she said that: “The proportion of NHS funding allocated to mental health services will decrease”, which will “equate to these vital services missing out on an estimated £300 million or more that they would have received if their share…had been maintained.”

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The only protections that I can see in schedule 2 are an age requirement, a stipulation not to be disqualified by a previous court order, and the presence of a witness. There is therefore no pre-emptive way of protecting people, which is why amendment 41 is so important.