Dr Luke Evans
MP for Hinckley and Bosworth · Conservative · United Kingdom
“When I saw the Budget, I was pleased that there were some bits that I have been working on that have finally come to fruition. First, pensioners are being taken out of paying tax on their state pension. There is also the freeze on fuel duty. Those are in response to things that were warned about, but put in by a Labour Government.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I had to check that the Chancellor had said what I thought he had, and it was referred to again today by the Defence Secretary. They said that this is the first 100 days of a Government, with a new 10-year plan.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would be far simpler to let businesses take on people and grow as they need. The same applies to the hospitality industry and the leisure industry.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An increasing number of constituents are coming to me with problems getting their licence. One example was a lady who had dementia; she passed all the tests but had months of delays trying to get her licence, eventually having to take her complaint to the chief executive to get an answer, only for the licence to be backdated, meaning she…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is talking about doing everything that we can. One way to bring in some funding is through gas and oil tax receipts. Page 94 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report explicitly says that Rosebank is baked in as being granted. Does he support Rosebank?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Talking about structural problems and difficulties, a press release has just come out from the Labour party that says: “Exclusive. Chancellor tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring welfare bills down in this Parliament”. Does the Minister stand by that?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,487 lines on record for Dr Luke Evans, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 6 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and I will come on to Andrew Tate. That is my worry, and I have been raising concerns both in this House and outside about the dangers of labelling what young men could be. Only this week, the British Medical Journal published a paper on the topic of the Government’s misogyny plans and lessons, which said that while it is “well intentioned, the UK government’s strategy to counter misogyny may inadvertently alienate vulnerable young men”. It went on to say: “The government’s strategy overlooks the causes that draw young men and boys towards online misogyny.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given all the evidence—and there is much, much more that I am sure we will hear about in the debate—and the worsening metrics, I simply ask this: will the Government consider a men and boys Minister? In that context, could the Minister set out why we need a women and girls Minister? To finish where I started, this is about men and women, not men or women.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To turn to a more up-to-date view of where society is, an article in Psychology Today in 2023 reported on Pew research that indicated that “over 60% of young men are currently single” and that “sexual intimacy is at a 30-year low across genders.” The article cited multiple reasons for those findings such as pressure, financial issues and changes in lifestyle choices for men, but it also cited changes in women making more choices about where they want to go. That can leave men feeling lost, isolated and lonely. This is another prime example of men not knowing where they fit in society. As we have touched on, if we get this wrong, the likes of Andrew Tate will fill this space as a way forward, and I am incredibly concerned that that leads young men down a path that we will struggle to get them back from.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am really pleased to take that intervention, because the hon. Lady hits on a crucial point. When people are asked about role models, they may often identify their father, teacher, brother or football coach— a male figure in their life who they aspire to. If the number of male role models is falling, that is a concern, and that links to encouraging men and placing them into that profession. That would be one of the merits of having a men and boys Minister: they could look at exactly that issue and make sure that we are not siloed on that basis.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member may be aware of a Netflix series, “The Diplomat”, in which a very strong woman had an altercation with her husband. The comedy of the scene was that she beat him several times with the security guards looking on. That was glossed over and seen as part of being a strong woman, but it is the kind of problem that we have when we talk about men being victims of domestic violence, which is still normalised in modern society these days. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the kind of thing we need to watch out for?”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate that the Government recognise the issues, but we do have a women and girls Minister. Why do we need a women and girls Minister when we do not have a men and boys Minister?”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also raised the Union aspect, which it is hugely important to consider, because this problem goes across all four countries. I also thank both chairs of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for what they do and for driving this topic forward not just in this Chamber, but outside it. To conclude, if men truly are from Mars, and women truly are from Venus, I believe that this House and this Government have a duty to support, translate and govern the whole solar system—not just one planet. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Men and Boys.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think it was the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) who asked, “Where to start?”. Well, today has been a jolly good place, with cross-party support. She also talked about a journey; a journey starts with the first footstep, and we have certainly had that today. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for pointing out that this is not a hidden problem, and we can no longer pretend that it is. This is something that must be talked about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt)—and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) talked specifically about the work, education and data that will drive that. I think that that is imperative. The hon.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the withholding of Pharmacy First payments to pharmacies.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the ongoing concerns from multiple fields, will he commission a review of the operational performance of the entire NHSBSA? Community pharmacies are already under intense pressure from this Government, with tax rises on employment and business rates and with increases in costs, and now they appear not to be being paid for work already done. I hope the Minister will act quickly to put this right.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Contractors are only discovering the issue long after the window has closed, when it’s already too late.” Will the Minister tell the House how many pharmacies the Government think are impacted? What is the total value of the outstanding payments? What steps are the Government taking to rectify this, and would they consider a late payment mechanism to help solve the issue? There is a wider concern. Payments are administered by the NHS Business Services Authority. The chair of the NPA labelled the behaviour of NHSBSA “outrageous”. That already follows repeat concerns about NHSBSA’s performance, including multiple serious delays in NHS pension processing and several urgent questions on the Floor of the House. Does the Minister still retain confidence in NHSBSA?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I of course withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for summoning the Minister on my behalf. It seems to have had the desired effect, because the outstanding parliamentary questions have, strangely enough, been answered this morning. I hope to get some clarity as this is really important. The issue has been explained simply by the chair of the National Pharmacy Association: “The work was done. Patients were treated. The NHS benefited. Yet payments are being withheld on a technicality.” What makes that worse is that many pharmacies do not even realise that some of the money is missing. He goes on: “Statements appear ‘successful’, yet Pharmacy First payments are absent.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? I have recently learned that the £10 million day case unit in Hinckley is potentially in jeopardy and might get cancelled. This follows a series of delays by the NHS and the local council and, unbelievably, a last-minute plea by the Lib Dem borough council leader to look again at the project, which led to further delays. The planning application did go through, but costs have gone up. Inevitably, the use of the unit has now changed, and it is in real peril. I have already written to the Health Secretary about this issue as a matter of urgency. May I ask the Leader of the House’s office to chase that up as well, so that this gets looked at and, hopefully, we can keep the unit going?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward? I have missed something, though. Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?”
House of Commons9 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet again, we are spending parliamentary time debating whether information will be released, when the Prime Minister knows that information. In the five hours that we will have spent debating this motion, he could have answered our questions and set this right. Instead, he is not here. Members might say that convention shows no other Prime Minister has done that. Well, some of them did, but, more importantly, this Prime Minister said that he was going to be different; he told us that he wanted to see change.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is not analogue or digital; he knew that there were concerns but he made the appointment. This is not about the intelligence but about judgment. We want to understand whether advice was given and whether it was followed. It is not about how that advice was written, but simply whether it was acknowledged, passed on and ignored. What has not been mentioned is that we have been over this once before. Just before Christmas, we had a debate under Standing Order No. 24. At the time, I asked why the Prime Minister had not come to the House. By his own admission, he makes the decisions, so he must have all the answers. When he came into government, he said at the door of No. 10 that he wanted to do things differently. All he has proved is that he cannot show leadership by coming to answer the questions put to him.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every instinct in me says that no other Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House, would think him a suitable candidate to be this great nation’s ambassador to one of our greatest allies. We have heard that we cannot have more information because of national security concerns, but we Conservatives are not asking to see the blueprints of the horse, or the blueprints of the walls of Troy; we are simply asking whether the Prime Minister was warned before he wheeled into Government the Trojan horse that was Mandelson. Did he receive any information? Did he know anything? I was thinking about that this morning, until I heard the Prime Minister speak at Prime Minister’s questions. As was rightly pointed out in the speech before mine, he did know.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
““Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” That is a slightly obscure quote from a Trojan priest—the one who spotted the danger. Many Members will know the wider story of the Trojan horse. The moral of that story is that warnings were there but were ignored. That is fundamental to what we are seeing today. Troy did not fall because there were no warnings; it fell because they were dismissed, sent away, ignored. That led to catastrophe. Let us apply that to our Prime Minister. He appointed as ambassador a man known for decades as “the dark knight” for operating behind the scenes. That was his reputation—and not only on that basis. He was sacked not once but twice from Cabinet roles.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Back Benchers are not being asked to defend or attack the appointment; they are simply being asked to step forward and vote for a motion that means all of us, here in this House and across the country, get to understand why the Prime Minister made his decision. If he will not come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions about that, maybe the documentation that he saw and signed off will show the answers. I ask Members on the Government Benches to support this motion, to stand up for that simple transparency and to let us have some clarity on what has happened and what will happen going forward.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They exist in moments such as this one, when there is stalling in scrutiny, when we cannot get the answers that this House demands and when there is obfuscation and no way forward. Today, we ask the Monarch to compel the Government to give out that information. That is important not only for party politics but for both sides of this House and the wider country. The motion does not ask those on the Government Benches to condemn but simply to clarify. We need to know who said what, when and why, who knew what, and with whom and what were the discussions. I think that can be supported on all sides of the House. Clarity is what the Humble Address strives for.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Troy fell because leaders ignored the advice given when the horse was at the gate, and Prime Ministers fall for the same reason. The Prime Minister is either saying that his judgment was so catastrophic that he did not see what all of us have seen instinctively or that he chose to ignore the information. Whichever the outcome, that is the problem that faces us today. It is customary in these kinds of debates for a speaker to pose questions to the ministerial team. I will not do that; instead, my question is to the people sitting behind them on the Government Back Benches. Why are we having a Humble Address? This is the very opportunity—the literal reason for them—for Humble Addresses.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can my hon. Friend tell us what we can learn about the documentation, and how the investigation was run back then? As he pointed out, Mandelson was exonerated, yet other papers were found, and suddenly he was guilty. It would be helpful to understand what needs to be done to ensure that we have the right information, as we need to make inferences and decisions about what was going on.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating: “which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context. I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve. The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle. At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here. It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves. The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The key thing is that these are difficult choices that have to be made. I worry that the public see straight through what is going on. They need fairness in the system. They do not need a vote to be held to try to placate the Back Benchers of a failing Prime Minister. If this truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done it straightaway.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, as we have heard from other Members, when this policy was put forward after the new Government came in, 40-odd MPs did not vote and seven Labour Members had the Whip removed. If we are talking about poverty, one thing that has not been raised in the debate so far is the winter fuel payments policy. The Government’s own analysis said that it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty and 100,000 into relative poverty. So there is a dichotomy here, and it is about choices. Government Members seem to say that if we are going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area, yet they all voted to take the fuel payments away— [ Interruption. ] I hear chuntering from the other side about means-testing, but that did not happen until later when there was a climbdown.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is exactly right. The public will stand for a generous safety net, but they will not stand for people not trying to take things forward. I worry that, despite this Government’s talk of employment rights, the chances for employment and the working poor, more people are out of work under this very Government due to the choices they are making. That is fundamental to today’s debate, and trying to leverage morality into it misses the reality of responsibility. Every family in this country make fiscal choices and expect to behave responsibly, and so should the Government who lead them. That is the crux of the matter. In the time I have left, I will move on to the context. If this were a moral crusade, as we have heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget; he would have made that choice.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but also to those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints and so should a country. This Bill does nothing but the opposite, and that is my concern.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Why, in that case, was the Whip removed from Labour Members? Why is there no contingency in the Bill to ensure that someone is progressing through the system? We have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House that it is not only a safety net but a springboard. I come back to my point that if the Government want to make a difference, they could change the rating on universal credit to encourage more people into work, but that is not happening. That would help to support people who are in work but who are impoverished. The last Government brought in the household support fund to ensure that there was immediate support. I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still have not seen what that looks like. That will be a concern for people. I shall end where I began.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are not many on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman’s party won the last election—but we know that the public support keeping this cap in place. Any poll conducted in the last few years has suggested that, on average, 60% of people think that the cap should remain. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the British public back the cap staying in place?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I just see the irony of the hon. Member talking about linking this to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party has directly linked this to gambling, even though this is not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady talks about speaking for the public, but consistently, in all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What does she say to them?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Negotiations may well be ongoing, but the key question is whether the UK can make a unilateral decision to give away sovereignty without the blessing of the US. This question was posed three times on Monday, and the Minister simply said it is under discussion. Ministers need to answer directly today, so I pose this question now: can this be done unilaterally or not?”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Specifically on that point, the 2021 judgment did not have any British representation and rested on the UN’s non-binding judgment. We also know from the 2015 ruling that that court cannot preside over sovereignty, so how does it stand up to scrutiny that the Minister is saying that there is a dire need to hand the islands over?”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have actually enjoyed seeing what the Foreign Office has been doing over the past few weeks. I was trying to determine why I have been getting so much more enjoyment out of it, and I think it is because it has been taking advice from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Every time we have a Foreign Office question, the Black Knight comes in front of us. They are honourable, brave and doughty; they will not answer a question; they are torn limb from limb, and their arguments are struck down one by one; but they still want to have the fight.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to the nuclear aspect, we Conservatives recognise that the Pelindaba treaty creates a conflict, and the Government have not explained why it does not. As for the US’s involvement and whether it has a veto, we believe that the 1966 agreement would need to be taken into account. Finally, although it has not been mentioned today or over the past few weeks, there is the long-term security of this base. At the end of 99 years, there is only an option for us to buy and continue, so what happens at that point? We have not secured the long-term security of the base at all.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government say that there is legal jeopardy, but the Conservatives contend that what the International Court of Justice says is non-binding, that there is no court that could pass judgment, and that there is a Commonwealth opt-out. The Government say that the cost is £3.4 billion; the Government Actuary says that the figure is £34 billion, and the Conservatives contend that the Government are using the wrong tool to make a judgment on cost, because net present value does not count. When it comes to the environment, the Government say that safeguards are in place, but the Conservatives contend that Mauritius does not have a navy that would enable it to hold up its side of the bargain and prevent damage to fishing.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is indeed. I applaud the Government and their Ministers for doing that. We hear time and again from Government Members that we have had ample time to debate these issues. I entirely agree, but that is exactly the problem. These debates have been going on for so long because we are not getting the answers that we need to do our job and scrutinise this deal. Anyone making a good argument should be able to justify their point and evidence it. I will summarise some of the key questions that I want answered, and will say why we seem stuck. I will then explain why that matters, and, finally, will give the context of this debate. First, we ask about the legal position.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The question is: what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1966 notes? I will take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because the fundamental point about US involvement is this: if they say no, but we say yes, where do the islands go? What happens to the agreement? What happens if they say yes and we say no? Those fundamental questions are why we keep coming back to this issue. If there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, the Opposition would understand that and be able to make a balanced judgement. Instead, we have gaps in our understanding from the Government.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Fundamentally, the US should express its concerns publicly, and it has now done so. We have asked Ministers, both in this debate and on Monday, whether the UK Government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. The Government have said that they have to amend the notes, but they have not set out what happens if the US does not agree. That is the key part of this, but the Government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday when I asked that question, the same answer that I got when I intervened on the Minister, and the same answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) got. They say that they have set out the process, which is primary legislation, secondary legislation, and then amendments to the notes.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗