Dr Luke Evans
MP for Hinckley and Bosworth · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic. Although he and I are in different parties, we have long been on the same page about how important it is to have male role models and about the role of men and boys. Under the previous leadership, we were making progress, with a men and boys summit due to take place this summer.”
“This House will know that I continue to push for the issues affecting men and boys to be addressed, and we were making progress—the last Prime Minister committed to a men and boys summit. Sadly, there has been a reshuffle and that summit has not yet happened.”
“We are talking about resilience, and one of the things that has made resilience worse is Labour’s policy on mandatory advice and guidance, and single point of access. We know that secondary care doctors and GPs are struggling but, more importantly, it is causing actual harm to patients.”
“The Minister has spoken about sovereignty, and she is right, and she will be aware that under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, any decision on exploration has to come to this country. It just so happens that the very Energy Secretary who banned new licences in the UK will now be that decision holder.”
“When the right hon. Lady came to the House last year to announce her consultation, I called it a mess. Fast forward 18 months: there is now chaos in the outcome and decisions. Make no mistake, the reason we are here now is the threat of the courts.”
“We know that Labour’s NHS policy on mandatory advice and guidance and single point of access has led to deaths. We on the Opposition Benches warned about it, doctors warned about it, and patients warned about it, and we were told repeatedly that it was total nonsense, misinformation, opportunism and even conspiracy theories.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dr Luke Evans, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 12.
“In the first Budget, there was an increase in the national living wage and in national insurance contributions, and business rates relief for the hospitality sector was cut from 75% to 40%. If we fast forward to this Budget, the national living wage has been raised again and the business rates relief has been cut again. Now the Government have come forward to say, “We are putting transition measures in place”, but those measures will mean a 15% increase for the vast majority of businesses. That increase is capped—I give the Government credit for that—but for the vast majority of businesses, the increase is 15% this year, and then up to 30%, 40% or 70% over three years. That is the prospect for hospitality businesses.”
“I would love to elucidate, because if we go back to 2010, we had to deal with the financial crisis, and we had to borrow £158 billion to deal with that. Then we had to get the coffers back in the right position, and we were just about doing that before the pandemic hit and we had to borrow another £400 billion. The hon. Lady was not here under the previous Government, but every time we were here, the Opposition were asking us to spend more, and we are now feeling the pressures of having to deal with that. The hon. Lady talks about what Labour inherited, but it also inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7. We also had inflation at target and very little unemployment, but all those things are now changing under this Government, because of their polices. It is easy to see why.”
“My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I bow to her experience as I know that she has run and been involved with many businesses. She speaks the truth about what businesses and risk-takers are looking at in this country. They are saying, “Why would I take that risk? Why would I take on that responsibility if there is not any reward?” I would have had more truck with the Government if they set out what they were trying to achieve over the next three or four Budgets sequentially. They could then have increased national insurance contributions, for example, as a one-off, and built around that. However, the problem is that there is a toxic concoction of measures all coming in one go.”
“I had hoped that the Government might listen to those ideas. The Government’s mantra has always been that their No.1 mission is growth, but all the measures that they have put in place are anti-growth. We are seeing the results of that, with inflation being higher.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right. As an MP, he will be an employer. No doubt, he is a good employer who offers the members of his team good terms and he cares deeply about the staff who he is looking after. However, we have taxpayer-funded jobs, but the private sector has to generate the funding to employ people, so those businesses have to take the risk and work out whether there will be a job in the first place. Worse still, because of the Government’s Budget choices, many cafés and pubs are looking to reduce the hours that they open, to reduce their staffing hours or even to close because they cannot make the numbers add up. We are seeing a cumulative effect, which is having an impact at a micro level on the likes of Twycross and at a macro level on the whole country, with every industry speaking out and saying that it is having problems.”
“This is where the Government might be slightly wrong and where they have got the balance wrong, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). If the system is tilted too far and made too tight for people ever to take a risk, we are not going to have the tax inflow in the first place. Worse still, we have seen 16,000 millionaires and counting leave the country.”
“I will take an intervention on that point, if any Labour Member would like to make one. More importantly, my hon. Friend correctly makes the point that it is the Government’s job to set the framework. There is no such thing as Government money: it is taxpayers’ money, earned by those who create the wealth. It is businesses and the associated workforce that provide the public sector with the money it needs to do its job—it is that simple. In my trade as a doctor, we talk about A-B-C-D-E when it comes to a patient. There is no use dealing with the circulation—the heart—if the person does not have a clear airway. The same applies here: we need to have an economy that is growing and thriving to be able to give the foundation to the funding for the likes of the NHS or education.”
“In conclusion, at the end of “Blackadder Goes Forth”, Blackadder resigns himself to going over the top, but Baldrick taps him on the shoulder and says, “Sir, I have a cunning plan.” I hope that the Chancellor has a cunning plan to deal with this situation, but I will not wait with bated breath.”
“I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There is a risk of doing that, but we have to remember that it does not need to be like that. There are many good employees and many good employers, far more than hon. Members like to talk about. Our job is to protect those margins. If we make the margins too tight, we hinder the very people who are doing a good job, which I think is his inference and what I hear in my constituency. That is why I am asking the Government to rethink this balance and to reconsider the toxic concoction of legislation, red tape and taxation all at once causing such a big problem. At the end of the day, we can have as many employment rights as we want, but if we do not have businesses driving growth and providing jobs, they will not apply—it is as simple as that.”
“When the Chancellor stood up and said that the Government would be changing business rates, there was some relief across the industry, but now businesses are realising that because the temporary relief that has been in place for five years since the pandemic is being stripped away, even though they are getting these new business rates, they are much worse than what they had before. It is the cumulative effect of both those things crossing over that is causing the problem—that is why bills will go up, rather than come down. Does my hon. Friend agree?”
“The Minister’s amendment to the motion refers to “a comprehensive vision for productivity and success” for small businesses. It is incredibly similar to the amendment that the Government tabled in the high streets debate, but interestingly, what has gone is a reference to a 25% cut in administrative burden. The Minister raised the issue, but did not comment on whether the Government are committed to that 25% cut. Where does that figure come from, and why has it disappeared from this amendment, when it was in a previous one?”
“One concern that I have is the repeated pattern seen with the Budget. At the time, the Government sat on an impact assessment that showed that 100,000 pensioners would be pushed into poverty and 50,000 into absolute poverty. That was the Government’s own assessment, but they did not release it to the House or the country before pushing through the policy, which we have now seen in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off mistake?”
“Nowhere is that more evident than in health, with the abolitions and redundancies in integrated care boards. Given that those redundancies cover 50% of ICB staff, we now understand that the funding is just being reprofiled into later spending in 2028-29. Is that not exactly the kind of example that my right hon. Friend is talking about? Labour will encounter real problems in the next couple of years as it tries to drive through its agenda.”
“I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.”
“Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?”
“He has said that he will look at the code of conduct in respect of the seriously difficult positions in which mental health professionals might find themselves during an evening of dealing with a parent who is contesting with a child the question of who is to be the nominated person. I am glad that the Government are looking at the code of practice, and we will not be dividing the House tonight. That being said, as with the 10-year plan that the Government have brought forward, there is a synergy here. The synergy is this: Members on both sides of the House agree with the thrust of the 10-year plan and this Bill, but the problem is that there is no delivery chapter. That was the Opposition’s concern when the Government were taking the Bill forward.”
“Ensuring that we have that distinction worked out will be vital to providing the right support for the right people in the right place, and, ultimately, that is what the Bill is dedicated to doing. I have talked in the House about why that is so important. This Bill, above all others, deals with the most vulnerable people in society—those who are seriously mentally unwell—so I am pleased that we have reached a stage at which we can take it forward and put it into law. I was also pleased to hear the Minister comment on the amendment from the other place, and the concerns raised by Baroness Berridge. I understand the points that he has tried to make and the clarifications that the Government have tried to introduce in relation to the amendment.”
“I have talked about roads and bridges throughout the duration of the Bill. We have now reached the end of the long road that was, of course, embarked on by Baroness May in 2018 with the independent Wessely report, which was the foundation of this legislation. It constitutes a cross-party, cross-departmental look at how we can improve the lives of people with the most serious mental health issues. I was pleased to hear the Minister start to talk about the difference between mental health and mental wellbeing. That is fundamental when it comes to dealing with our policies and how we will take the country forward, because while not everyone has a serious mental health problem, everyone has problems with their mental wellbeing.”
“Maybe there is alternative investment, but as a starting point, the investment standard will be crucial in dealing with the mental health challenge, which is growing despite the pandemic and all the investment that has already gone in.”
“That is the crux of the matter that people outside the House will be looking at; it is a direct question, and it is the only one that I have in this debate. We on this side of the House have raised this issue in the debates we have had on both palliative care and mental health, and I raised it with the Minister only last week. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has raised this question again and again. Are the Government committed to the investment standard or not? Is it something that they have dropped? The House and the wider public need to know, so that we can plan for service provision. If the Government are dropping it, that is on them, and they need to explain the reasons why they are doing so.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but he has also missed the point. He gives me the opportunity to point out that one way in which the previous Government dealt with this issue was by bringing forward the mental health investment standard, under which the proportion of spending on mental health had to mirror the spending on physical conditions. That was starting to lead to real change. Alas, under this Government, there is a concern that the standard has not been met. We know that the proportion of mental health spending has fallen under this Government, according to the written ministerial statement that they put out. That leads me on nicely to the point that I wanted to raise: how will we fund the models that are coming forward?”
“That is investment that could have made a difference to mental health provision. I do not want to get into the heated politics any further, and I do not want to delay the House any further this evening, but the Government’s position on the mental health investment standard is crucial when it comes to delivering this Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach, and for the way in which he has taken ideas forward and looked through the Bill in fine detail. I know he cares deeply about getting this right, as do many Members of this House. It is imperative to ensure that compassionate, modern care is delivered to those who need it most when it comes to dealing with serious mental health conditions.”
“I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for stepping in on that basis. We have had plenty of chances to debate this Bill, both in Committee and many times in the mental health debates that I am partial to. We could go through why the last Government changed the interventions of NHS England and brought in integrated care boards to allow for a joined-up structure to be put in place. We now see a new iteration coming forward but, yet again, we do not know how much it will to cost to get rid of NHS England. We do not know the redundancy packages for the ICBs and how much they will cost. That is fundamental. One thing we do know is that, as the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the change to the investment standard alone will cost the sector £300 million.”
“I appreciate that the Minister cannot commit to a financial spending envelope now, but is it not the case that the mental health investment standard is something that the Government could commit to?”
“We in this House need to ensure that others can hold what those who are struggling find too heavy to hold. That is the essence of what we are trying to do, whichever side of the House we are on or whether, like Mike, we are outside this House. We are trying to make sure that when someone is in their time of need, and when they feel the burden is too heavy, they can hand it on to someone else, who will help to carry that load.”
“In the debate—before we had heard about the framework—I asked whether that would be looked at as part of the framework, because that 24/7 point of contact could form part of the mental health support that families get when they are struggling and in their time of need. I would be grateful if the Government would consider that. I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but I would also be grateful if he could set out how the palliative care framework will be put together. Who are the stakeholders? How can people like Mike and interested Members contribute to ensuring that we get it right? We want this House to do it only once; we want to get the framework right for England, and hopefully across the home nations as well, so it will be incredibly important that all stakeholders are involved.”
“It is also timely, given that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is going through Parliament. An amendment to the Bill, which was nodded through with support from both sides of the House, will ensure that there is a financial plan for what palliative care should look like. It will be imperative that considerations about mental health care for the terminally ill are involved in that framework. In his November debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of a 24/7 palliative care helpline, which many across the House and many charities have asked for.”
“At the time, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said: “It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.” The previous Government brought in the mental health investment standard, but it is not clear whether this Government are adhering to it or keeping it in place. It will be important in ensuring that we have the investment to provide both the places and the workforce. I welcome the bringing forward of the palliative care framework, which Opposition Members and many others on both sides of the House have asked for. I am pleased that the Government have set that out, because it will be the framework that provides the care we need across the country.”
“A letter I received from the Government on the topic of hospices stated: “This summer, we will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will build over the next decade so that patients can be treated on time again.” I raised this issue in the November debate. We are now into December, and winter, and we still do not know when the NHS workforce plan will come forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It is especially important given that, in the last Budget, the Government cut the proportion of spending on mental health care.”
“The National Audit Office’s report into hospices states: “DHSC and NHS England do not know what proportion of the total amount of palliative and end-of-life care provided in England is delivered by the independent adult hospice sector, and therefore how reliant they are on the sector.” That is an important point in understanding the fabric and make-up of provision, as well as the postcode lottery in provision, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out. If we want to improve provision, we need to understand what is there in the first place. To do so, we need to provide a workforce, as I also said in the letter.”
“In the few minutes I have, I will distil this debate into three areas: first, the location of mental health care, secondly, the workforce and, thirdly, the plan. On the first point—I have raised this with the Minister before—hospices often provide a lot of mental health support, but they are struggling. Many are closing beds and many are in deficit. Together for Short Lives estimates that the national insurance contributions increase costs an average hospice at least £130,000. After a previous debate on hospices, I asked the Government in a letter of 10 November, to which I have not yet had a response, whether they will consider an impact assessment on the state of hospices.”
“The old adage we often hear is that there are two certainties in life—taxes and death. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about the former and very little time speaking about the latter, even though we know it will affect us; I have argued that both as a doctor and in this House since I was elected. I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. It is so important and it will affect all of us. We are informed by the work of our constituents, so I also put on record my thanks to Mike for his incredible story and for the memory of Sarah that he has brought to this place, at the highest level, so that we can have this debate about how we can improve the condition of those in their time of greatest need.”
“The Minister is indeed right to say that there was an injection of cash, but the proportion of funding being spent on mental health was actually cut. The written ministerial statement is very clear that that proportion went from 8.78% to 8.71%, which the royal college said was about £300 million of investment. Can he confirm from the Dispatch Box—if he cannot, he can write to me later—whether the Government are still committed to the mental health investment standard, or is that commitment going to change? Currently, it is unclear whether they are still committed.”
“Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution”, —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.] then went around the studios at the weekend saying, “I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”. She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?”
“When it comes to making decisions about poverty, it is difficult, so I would be grateful to understand the Secretary of State decision to change the winter fuel payments, which the Government’s own analysis said put 100,000 people into relative poverty and 50,000 people immediately into absolute poverty. Those are decisions that he and his Government made because they were concerned about the finances of the country. The Opposition now have similar concerns with regard to the child benefit cap changes, and yet the Government have made a different decision. Could he explain the reasons why there is a difference?”
“I have the automotive industry in my area too, and electric vehicles are really important. The implementation of the pay-per-mile change for electric vehicles is causing huge anxiety, as is the impact on the second-hand car market. We do not understand how this measure will work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear on this, as it will have a big impact over the next two to three years while it is discussed?”
“They have taxed charities, and even milkshakes—tax, tax, tax. The public have seen what a Labour Government have done. They were told about it, and they have seen it twice in a Budget. When it comes to the next one, I hope they will remember that.”
“393.] I need to tell the Chancellor that being asked for a contribution is not the same as being told, which is what this Government are doing. What would happen if someone tried to refuse, saying, “No, I’ve paid my fair share”? My constituents say, “I’ve done enough,” but they cannot just say no. They will get a fine or, worse, a criminal record and go to jail. So let us deal with the semantics and say what it is: a naked choice to increase tax on the British public. In the run-up to the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was prophetic in what he said. We were not listened to, and I understand all the reasons why. He said, “A Labour Government will tax your holiday, your house, your GP, your pharmacy, your flights, your car, your pension, your savings”—have I missed anything?”
“The Chancellor has even broken her own manifesto commitment, which she has admitted, because in the 2024 Budget she said from the Dispatch Box: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous Government.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Yet, one year on, she said from the Dispatch Box last week: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution.” —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c.”
“It is through £40 billion of tax rises in the first Budget and £26 billion of tax rises in this one. Don’t just take my word for it, because even if, before the last Budget, we believed in the fictional black hole, which was then disproved by the OBR, the Chancellor went on Sky News after that Budget and said: “We’ve now wiped the slate clean… It’s now on us…we’ve set the spending envelope on the course for this Parliament, we don’t need to come back for more. We’ve done that now”. She went on: “there’s no need to come back with another Budget like this, we will never need to do that again.” Yet here we are with £26 billion more tax on the British public, yet we still have weak growth, high inflation and no living within our means.”
“They did not realise that what they were actually going to do was put up taxes on hospices, pharmacies and GPs—that was all missed. Now a new Budget has come forward, and I call it the “ball of wool Budget”. Why? Because for the first time in history we have had this ball of wool unravel time and again, for weeks upon weeks, until it was finally spun into a yarn that we were supposed to believe, but the British public have seen right through it. It is unparliamentary to use the term “liars”, but I think I can use “Pinocchio”, and I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may well fall into that category. Rest assured, people in Leicestershire and up and down the country see right through this Labour Government. They see what this Budget was all about: trying to placate the Back Benches, and how?”
“I congratulate the Government on keeping one of their manifesto commitments, because their manifesto said, “Change”—it is just that no one realised that would be all that was left in the British public’s pocket when it came to it. I would like to give a second congratulations to the Chancellor, because I gather that she has won an award: best Dubai estate agent for 2025. We know that 250,000 people have now emigrated from Britain because of the impacts of her Budget. I expect she is now going for the next award in 2026. More importantly, this seems to be a Labour Government who are caught between trying to do things on purpose or by mistake. At the last Budget, they were up front that they were going to tax education for the first time.”
“Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.”
“Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?”
“Electric and plug-in car drivers in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire have woken up angry and anxious this morning. They were told to do the right thing by getting electric cars, yet the Chancellor is going around this morning saying that they will be charged per mile and that the money will go into improving roads. The Leader of the House, a learned man, will know that that link was broken in 1937. There is some consternation about how the charges will affect the second-hand car market, whether vehicles will need trackers, and what happens when charges are passed over. Those are serious considerations for my constituents, who are trying to understand how the scheme will work. May we have a debate in Government time on how the electric vehicle charges will work?”
“When it comes to hospital provision, the Conservatives believe that we should continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times. We believe the Government should not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds; we should continue to make use of private-sector capacity to treat NHS patients where available. Does the Minister agree?”
“I am pleased to hear that the Minister does, given that it is her current policy. The last time the Government brought in private finance, they brought in the private finance initiative, which brought in £13 billion of investment. The problem was that it cost the taxpayer a whopping £80 billion, and hospitals are still paying decades on. This time around, will the Government give a cast-iron guarantee and complete confidence to the public that this is not Labour’s version of PFI mark 2?”
“I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?”
“We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.”
“In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys. That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river.”