Luke Evans MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that. Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety. In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister for Security. I have been here for almost an hour and a half, and I have not heard him answer this question: was China spying on Parliament, or is it even a consideration that it is spying on Parliament?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We in Leicestershire have three, if not four, plans for our reorganisation, with no agreement. We also have a county council run by Reform, which has already had not one but two reshuffles, losing its cabinet leads for social services and finance. While 70% of its budget is spent on social services and special educational needs and disabilities, what assurances can the Government give me that my constituents will get those services, and that those services will be protected, when there already seems to be chaos in the council?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I want to pick up the question about punishment, because I am confused. The Secretary of State says that, in order to work, someone will have to have a digital ID—it will be mandatory—yet she also says that the impetus will be on the company and not the individual, who will not need to have one. How will that work? Will the individual have to have one? If they choose not to, will that mean they cannot work? Will it mean they have to claim benefit? Or will it mean they will go to prison because they do not have a mandatory ID?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House. This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Is my right hon. Friend aware that James Matthews, the Sky News reporter, cornered Lord Mandelson on 27 May to ask him specifically about staying in Epstein’s flat? Mandelson did not deny it, but simply said that he regretted having any connection with him. These are the kinds of questions that should have been asked, and were being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and many other Members back in May, about the suitability of the ambassador. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should have looked into this further at that point?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I would hate for the Minister to mislead the House inadvertently, because I raised the examples earlier of Sky News and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who raised concerns about Mr Mandelson. Even in this debate, we heard evidence of what the Opposition have been doing, including talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador back in May.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. The Prime Minister said that he had “confidence in the ambassador”. He did not say “pending investigation or a suspension”, “I’ll look into it” or “I’ll follow process”, but “I have confidence.” Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister did not say that he would look into the situation seriously, and instead said from the Dispatch Box specifically that he had “confidence”?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. The Prime Minister said he would do things differently. If he wants to show leadership, he could come to the Dispatch Box himself. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who will have to defend this situation, but he is not the decision maker—he is not the risk holder when it comes to this decision. Therein lies the point. I am sad today, because the public will look on and see that a new Prime Minister came in on a landslide majority saying he would do things differently, by his own standards that he set, and he has chosen not to. He has ignored the questions. He has answered the media, saying in his one outing, “I wouldn’t have made the decision if I knew the information.” That is not good enough to allow the public to understand. I finish where I started: today is a pyrrhic victory—a hollow victory—but I live in hope. On the day that the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister could still lead the change that he set out. He could still live by his own standards that he set for himself and his Government, and he could still clear up once and for all exactly what happened. I live in hope that that might be the case.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  When I heard that this debate had been granted, I thought long and hard about what I could add and whether I should even take part. Many of the questions that spring to mind about the process—where, when, why, how and so on—have already been asked far more eloquently and in more detail than I could. In essence, it comes down to the fact that this was a political appointment, so the PM is the person who should carry the risk—that is the job. If it is someone else’s, we need to know who that is. Stepping back a bit, I thought, “What would the man and woman on Hinckley high street say if I talked to them about it?” They do talk about it, and it hits hard. They have many of the process questions that we have. This seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory. I am acutely aware that the sword of hypocrisy has a blade on both sides, and swung heavily in this House, it can hit both sides equally, but it is not the wound that can kill; it is the subsequent infection. That is the problem we are seeing today. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed to the past and talked about context. He is right: context is important to the public in this debate, and we on the Conservative Benches are paying the price for some of the decisions that were taken before. It was not the fact that a previous Prime Minister ate cake. It was the fact that it was then covered up, and we had to come to this House following the report to say that we felt the Prime Minister had lied. The new Prime Minister came in saying, “There will be change. There will be something different.” Those were his words. It was even on the lectern: “Plan for change”. Herein lies the problem. When the Transport Secretary was found to have committed fraud, when the anti-corruption Minister was investigated for corruption, when the homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless, and when the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary was found not to have paid her tax, it was not because the Prime Minister pushed them out there—it was because the media and this place did their job in holding them to account. That is the difference I am looking for today.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Official Secrets Act · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has repeatedly said that it is not his job to speculate on the CPS. He is right, but it is his job to defend the security of this country and therefore to ask the CPS why it has not brought charges. Has he done that? Has he rung the CPS before he came to the House to speak to it and to understand why it has not gone ahead? If not, why not?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Frontline Policing: Bureaucracy · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she is taking to help reduce levels of bureaucracy for frontline police officers.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Frontline Policing: Bureaucracy · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met the chief constable of Leicestershire, and he explained some of the red tape that his force faces. Between April 2024 and March 2025, it used 14,769 “use of force” forms. These are for when people go into handcuffs. Some 6,500 of those were for people who were complicit and were happy to be handcuffed. Each time that happens, it takes an average of 23 minutes to fill in one of those forms. If that could be taken away, it would save the force about £50,000. Will the Minister look at this, and will she meet me to discuss some of the other red tape that we could remove to make policing much more streamlined?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful. The new Secretary of State has been asked this several times, but we never heard an answer: can he point to a small or medium-sized business that actually supports this Bill?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Suicide Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). He honours John by securing the debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have honoured respectively the people they held so dear, in the most powerful way possible by turning personal grief into public purpose. I therefore thank them all for giving their time to speak. There was a TikTok video that went viral. It opens with a young woman energetically and innocently asking: “Be honest: who do you call whenever you’re at your lowest? Who’s that one person?” The stitched video replies come in, with men answering. The replies are harrowing and insightful: “Nobody. I’m a man. No one cares.” “Not a single soul.” “Nobody.” “No one, cause I am all alone.” “I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I don’t call anyone.” “Nobody. I’m a guy—no one gives a s***” “Speaking for the guys, literally no one.” “You all call someone?” “There’s no one. Nobody who cares.” “No one. I’m a man. No one cares.” “Not a single person. I wouldn’t turn to a single person on this earth as they will use it against me.” “I wouldn’t call anyone.” “What—we can call somebody?” That small insight from a seemingly jokey platform hits on what we—the House and wider society—must look at to try to understand why men feel they are not valued. Why do they feel they cannot call someone? Why do they fear doing so will be used against them? Why do they fear asking for help? Many hide in plain sight, struggling and battling until it is too late. After all, we know from the Samaritans that about two thirds of suicide victims are not known to mental health services. Hon. Members may wonder why I am choosing to focus my comments on men when the latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows that suicide rates are at their highest level since 1999. As we have heard, men account for three quarters of all suicides in the UK. The latest paper by the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys puts that in stark light. It showed that more men under 50 die in the UK due to suicide than for any other reason; 14 men every day die by suicide in the UK; 74% of all suicides are male; three times as many men die by suicide every year than die in a vehicle accident; and by 2023, over 90,000 men in England and Wales had died by suicide this century. That is enough to fill Wembley stadium. There is so much to do in this area. I want to highlight the focus and progress of the previous Government. Through the NHS long-term plan, an additional £57 million was provided by the former Conservative Government between 2019-20 and 2023-24 to fund suicide prevention and bereavement services in every local authority. My former colleague Sajid Javid, who was touched tragically by the experience of losing his own brother to suicide, was instrumental in starting the development of the suicide prevention strategy, which was published in 2023. Key initiatives included the development of a new nationwide, near real-time suspected suicide surveillance system that aimed to provide early detection and timely action to address changes in suicide rates. The strategy in its entirety set out over 100 actions to make progress across Government Departments, the NHS, the voluntary sector and national partners. In 2021, the previous Government also announced £150 million of funding for crisis mental health facilities and patient safety in mental health units. In January 2023, it was announced that £7 million of funding would be allocated to new mental health ambulances, with £143 million going towards 150 new projects, including schemes providing alternatives to A&E. That is welcome, but the stats show that, even with all that focus, the trend is worsening. Despite all that work and prioritisation of funding, we have yet to hear anything substantial from this Government about what they are doing on suicide prevention. As we know from one example, training can make a difference. Samaritans reports from its rail team that, for every one life lost, it is estimated that six lives are saved by interventions made thanks to the training given to National Rail and rail operating staff. That is proof that things can be done. Just yesterday it was World Suicide Prevention Day and the Prime Minister was asked twice about the topic. In response he said, first: “May I also thank those dealing with suicide prevention? Probably everybody in this House knows someone who has taken their life. It touches all of us and we must do everything we can, together, to prevent suicide.” —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 862.] Secondly, he said: “I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention.” —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 868.] Those are positive, warm words from the Prime Minister, which we are all pleased to hear. However, I think that we, across this House and among the public, would be interested in hearing the tangible actions taken by this Government after one year in office. Will the Minister provide an update on what direct, practical steps this Government are taking on suicide prevention, including the implementation of the recommendations in the strategy? What points—for example, disparities in the difference across ethnicities and races in the UK—are being addressed? I know that the Government have been consulting on a wide range of issues, particularly when it comes to men’s health and the men’s health strategy. I have been shining a light on those issues since I was elected in 2019, so I thank the Government for taking that important step forward. I understand that the Government are due to publish the mental health strategy and I commend them for that. Indeed, I note than in an Adjournment debate earlier this year, the Minister for Care stated: “In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care brought together leading campaigners, experts and the Premier League to gather ideas and inform our strategy and our 10-year health plan. We take suicide prevention extremely seriously, because every suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating and enduring impact on families, friends and communities.” —[ Official Report , 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 757.] His Majesty’s Opposition welcome that step forward, but in looking at the 10-year plan, I note that suicide is mentioned only three times. I think that everyone here hopes to see it feature heavily in the upcoming men’s health strategy. Will the Minister provide an update on timescales for the strategy and how it will consider suicide prevention? Will the Government look at the prospect of a Minister for men and boys if the evidence points in that direction? We have a Minister for Women, as we believe that women have different problems across society. By that very logic, men and boys have different needs too. If we are to go down the route of segregating policies on sex, there appears to be a compelling argument to have a men’s Minister to work across Departments. That cannot be starker if we consider that for every woman who dies by suicide in the UK three men die. Another achievement by the previous Government was the launch of the suicide prevention grant fund, as we have heard, providing £10 million to 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. In my constituency, the charity First Step Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland received £76,845 and the grant was used to improve specialist counselling work in prisons and to build on pilot projects. It is therefore a regret that the suicide prevention grant came to an end in March 2025 and has yet to be renewed or replaced. In response to a written question in April, the Minister for Care stated: “There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.” Will the Minister explain the basis behind the decision earlier this year not to renew or replace the suicide prevention grant fund, and what alternative provision, if any, is being provided?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Suicide Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does with the APPG. I am looking holistically at the different parts of what we are trying to do in this space. I have already outlined all the funding that the previous Government put in, and I will come on to some of the other problems, such as the national insurance rise, because she will know that they will have a devastating impact. At the time, the Minister also stated: “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 Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.” Could the Minister provide further details about that evaluation, such as when it will be completed and whether the Government would reconsider their decision to end the grant funding if the results show that it has had a positive impact in supporting suicide prevention? Charities were not exempted from the increase in employer national insurance contributions in the Budget. That has significantly hampered their financial situation. We just have to listen to what the Samaritans said in response to the spending review last year: “The reality is that funding for suicide prevention has dwindled down to next to nothing. To deliver our life-saving work, charities are reliant on donations—on the generosity of the public. And this is even more precarious at a time when many people across the country are facing economic hardship.” I point that out not to score political points, but to draw attention to the fact that the Labour Government need to set a direction and plan to deal with the leading killer of men and women under the age of 30. In closing, I want to recognise that yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day. Every year, 720,000 people across the world take their own lives. The theme this year was, “Changing the Narrative on Suicide”. It calls on us all to challenge harmful myths, reduce stigma and foster open, compassionate conversations about suicide. That leads me to where I started: if men do not know their value, if they do not know they have someone to confide in and if they do not truly believe that we care, we will not break the cycle, we will not make a difference and, ultimately, we will not save lives. That is the challenge laid before society, this House and, ultimately, this Government.

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the new Leader of the House for some help? I have been working with the Hinckley school to try and get its science and technology building project sorted. That has been going on for a couple of years and we are at a crucial point with contractors. With the reshuffle, the Minister in charge of that portfolio has been moved on, and we are therefore in a pending position. I have already sent the information to the Leader of the House and I would be grateful if he would contact the Department for Education on my behalf to put pressure on to ensure that we get a decision made on this, so that the development can get started before the winter sets in.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?