Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  At what point would the Green party feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green Members often say that the Government need to provide more support, but if we cannot de-escalate because this is not our war, how can we support constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and up and down the UK?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about. On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It sounds as though this support will be provided through the crisis and resilience fund, which replaces the household support fund. The problem is that many more people will not fall within that, despite seeing the price of heating oil double, if not triple—plus doubling the amount they have to order. What support is there for them? If those figures are going from £500 to £1,500 overnight, that will be a huge impact, and they will not get the £35 from the Government.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living. The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work? The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war? To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do. I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that “If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.] What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?

• 16 Mar 2026 · GP Contract · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the changes to the GP contract in 2026-27.

• 16 Mar 2026 · GP Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The Health Secretary and his team have perfected the sales pitch for NHS reform. The problem is that the detail never seems to arrive. We have seen a 10-year health plan with no delivery chapter, and a plan for the abolition of NHS England with no price tag; the Health Secretary has announced 10 new “straight to test” referral pathways, but could not name a single one; and now we are seeing a new GP contract with more questions than answers. Calling something modernisation does not make it reform. If the rules and the delivery are unclear, it is simply confusion with branding. “Advice and guidance”, for example, appears in practice to create a single point of access for referrals. GPs will no longer be able to refer patients directly to a consultant, even when they believe that it is clinically appropriate. Will the Government publish the clinical evidence supporting that approach? Who will carry the legal responsibility if, in a GP’s professional judgment, a patient needs to see a consultant but must first go through “advice and guidance”? If advice and guidance becomes mandatory as an extra layer before referral, are the Government not, in essence, managing the waiting list by keeping patients in primary care rather than treating them in secondary care? Waiting lists will look shorter on paper, but patients are simply waiting elsewhere in the system. Can the Minister clarify exactly where those patients will appear in the official waiting list figures? The contract also requires patients whose cases are deemed “clinically urgent” to be dealt with on the same day, but it does not define “urgent” or explain what “dealt with” means, and that really matters. Let me therefore ask the Minister three clear questions. First, when will the Government publish the clinical definition of “urgent”—a patient’s sick note is urgent for the patient, but not clinically urgent—and what counts as a patient’s being “dealt with” on the same day? Secondly, the Minister has talked about access, but how can practices guarantee same-day responses when demand is uncapped and definitions are not published? Finally, with advice and guidance being required as a mandate beforehand, how will we ensure that patients are protected, and where will they appear on the waiting lists?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely to see such a thoughtful, thought-provoking debate, with cross-party unity on the question of how we can better support our constituents who are suffering. It could be with a stairlift, a shower, a home aid or an adaption. When I was a GP, I saw what difference that can make to people. More recently, I visited Mounts & More in Stoke Golding, a company of specialists who support wheelchair users. Margaret and her family started Mounts & More in Market Bosworth in 1996; it fits mounting systems, such as for augmentative and alternative communication, to wheelchairs. The company’s best example is of Professor Stephen Hawking—it fitted the specialist holding position for such equipment. It also drives innovation and the small business side of things that we so long for in the UK. I am keen to dive straight into some of the questions asked, as time is short, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for being so succinct in his well thought out speech. He is a rare parliamentarian in that he had only a single question for the Minister. I congratulate him on that. He raised a significant point about strategy. The Government say they do not have a plan to bring forward an equipment strategy, and they tend to point towards the ICBs as the commissioners on this. There is going to be some difficulty, though, if the ICBs are cutting their staff by 50%. I do agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who asked whether there is an opportunity to look at what can be done in the forthcoming health Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out whether this is a consideration when it comes to dealing with support for people with disabilities. I have another question for the Minister on the disabled facilities grant. The Government have done a review, which is welcome, and recently published their look at the issue. As more and more people become infirm—the good news is that they are living longer, the bad news that they have more disabilities—the need will go up. It is not clear from the information that has been published just how that will be monitored. How will we ensure that the funding is going to the right place and working? There is a calculator on the website that says how it will be redistributed, but I point out that clarity on accountability will be hugely important. I would welcome input from the Minister on what that will look like.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. This is part of the problem in how we get different parts of the system to work together to get a full understanding of the situation; that is most important for those who are affected, but also for the commissioners who are trying to make the decisions on where the equipment goes. I hope the Minister has heard that and will be able to work it into his response. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the APPG, raise the very important issue of the insolvency of NRS Healthcare. For those who do not know, NRS Healthcare accounts for about 40% of coverage, covering 15 million people and 21 local authorities across the country. Its insolvency showed a weakness in the way we deliver our supply. I wrote to the Government back in the summer to try to find out what was being done and what lessons had been learnt. I received a generic response early on in August, saying that things are being kept under review. It stated: “The Department continues to monitor the situation closely and will support LAs to learn lessons and consider the implications for future resilience in this market.” I followed up very quickly and wrote back in September to ask more questions, but unfortunately I have not as yet received a response. I have with me a copy of the letter that was sent asking questions, particularly about what lessons have been learnt in this case and, more importantly, what is being done to implement more resilience in the supply chain. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a look. If such a thing were to happen again, given the stark economic situation we are facing, which I appreciate is outside the scope of this debate, it would have knock-on effects for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I would be grateful if the Government would set out exactly what they are doing to make sure the supply chain is secure. Finally, I want to raise concerns about the better care fund. The Government have been clear in the 10-year health plan about their promise to reform the fund, which has been very useful in bringing pooling together. However, we have already noticed that NHS England has already reduced the amount of additional voluntary funding it was putting in by £388 million. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) goes to the heart of the question: looking from the top down, how do we make sure these things are all integrated? How do we understand what ICBs, councils, the NHS and charities are doing through their provision? I would be grateful if the Government could set out where they see that better care funding fitting in and when we will actually see the outcome of the changes they propose. It appears that there have been delays in the national neighbourhood health service guidance and delays in the better care fund. Without that structure and without joining it all together, it is very difficult for those scrutinising the system and, more importantly, those working in and using the system to understand exactly what to expect and when. I would be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to set that out. I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions today, because, at the end of the day it is really important to shine a spotlight on those constituents who suffer the most and get on with it the most. They are the most pragmatic, fantastic people, and their support is paramount.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It was a different point.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Raising that point was useful, because many of the migrants are going into houses in multiple occupation, which is a real problem in my constituency. Along with my Liberal Democrat-run council, I have raised concerns not only about the impact on our community, but about where people are being placed. Those concerns have been raised with Serco, which is ignoring them. Will the Minister meet me so that I can discuss them with him? Those in my community are extremely concerned.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, associate myself with the comments about the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her stepping down as a Minister. She was a formidable opponent and will be sorely missed. I am sad to see her step back, but she has made the right decision for her, as in this place we should all do. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for securing this debate. He was absolutely spot on when he said we do not scrutinise the process of NHS capital spending nearly enough. I was taken by what he said on that point, but less surprised that not many solutions came forward, although that is key to having this debate, because it is hugely technical. I will use an example from my constituency for both the pros and the cons, the good and bad stories about capital investment. I was elected in 2019 and Hinckley is my biggest town. Healthcare is an important priority for my constituents and talk of improved hospital services there has been ongoing for 30 years now. On the good side, we were lucky enough to be picked to have a community diagnostic centre, a £24 million investment, and I was lucky enough to open it last year. That shows what good can come of capital investment. Under the previous Government, at August 2024, there were 165 similar good news stories of community diagnostic centres being opened across the country, not to mention the 108 surgical hubs that have not been talked about, but that are increasing patients’ ability to be seen and treated quickly, helping to deal with the waiting lists. I also come with a negative story related to the same hospital. We were looking for a second project, a £10 million day case investment, but unfortunately, despite funding having been secured, delays in the system and difficulties with changing need have meant that that has been cancelled. The NHS papers specifically on that case state: “The STP Capital business case for the Hinckley Day Case Unit received national approval in March 2024”— but then struggled. The papers go on to say: “However, since business case approval there have been further key changes… Changing financial context nationally and local financial challenges… Increased capital costs of the scheme circa £2m compared to that approved by the board… Programme delays resulting in a significantly reduced capital resource”. They go on to explain that further delays to the programme occurred due to “Cost pressures that exceeded the STP capital allocation…Since the approval of the STP Capital Business case in 2024, delays can be attributed to…The planning application phasing (considering the contention surrounding the demolition of the Hinckley District Hospital…The delay in submitting the planning application to allow the development of a robust design to address the Local Planning Authority’s concerns”. We can already see the difficulties in how need is being allocated across Leicestershire and how planning and inflation interfere. That is the process issue at the heart of making these capital decisions. That leads us to the bigger picture that confronts the Government today. As has been mentioned, funding is important, so what is the best document we can look at to see what the Government are trying to do? The 10-year plan is clear: “We will continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times, to return the NHS to its constitutional standards. As we outlined in our Plan for Change, we will not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds. We will continue to make use of private sector capacity to treat NHS patients where it is available, and we will enter discussions with private providers to expand NHS provision in the most disadvantaged areas.” The Opposition agree with that, but I am not sure that all Government Members will, so I am interested to know whether all the Minister’s hon. Friends are aligned with it. I agree with the concern that the previous Government’s private finance initiatives, which brought in £13 billion of investment for new hospitals, cost the taxpayer more than £80 billion in repayments. We are still paying for that now. Turning back to the NHS 10-year plan, a section called “Harnessing new investment” states that “we will learn from previous experience with the Private Finance Initiative…In other cases, however, PFI was a costly mistake which represented poor value for money. Contracts were too complex and lacked proper transparency. As the government considers new sources and models of private investment, we do so with this experience in mind.” How do we know that? Where is it set out that the Government have learned this time? In the same section, the Government tell us they will “evolve” their “infrastructure finance models and…consider the use of Public Private Partnerships…where there is a revenue stream, appropriate risk-transfer can be achieved, and value for money for taxpayers can be secured.” Those are not small tests; they are the fundamental ones that we must ensure are in place, so my simple question is this: what is different this time? How will we assure value for money, and who will make that decision? How will we see genuine risk transfer being assessed, rather than simply pricing it into decades of payments? How will that work? The 10-year plan also states: “We will codevelop this with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), building on the successful NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust programme, and will look to drive competition in the market to incentivise others, including third party developers, to improve their offer to deliver better services at lower cost to the taxpayer.” That is great—but LIFT is used only for small practices, so what model will come forward for everything else? The plan states: “We will engage with the market on this programme and support NISTA in its wider market testing of a new PPP model.” What is that model? Can we see it? What does it look like? I note from the Minister’s answers to written questions that 120 neighbourhood health centres will be operated by 2030; 70 will be new buildings, 50 will come from refurbishment and, of those, 80% will be funded through PPPs. However, there are no plans to publish the business case. That raises legitimate questions. Why are the Government hiding this? We have been here before, and the country is nervous about this, so why can we not see what is being brought forward? If a new model is genuinely different, transparency should not be a threat; it should be a strength. Why will Parliament and the public not see it?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the chance to put this on the record. The health infrastructure plan 2019 had the £3.7 billion, which was the seed funding to look into the projects to bring things forward. That also dealt with the first wave—the three hospitals that were brought forward to allow the second and third waves to come on. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, as the Government and the Opposition have stated, all big national infrastructure is done through a series of spending reviews. The money—£20 billion—was committed through those stages on the basis of that plan. The Government throw the same argument back at us when it is convenient for them to say, “We are not increasing defence spending because it needs to come in a spending review.” Both sides are playing politics, but there was money allocated in that plan. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament at that time, but he can ask the House of Commons Library to look at it so that he understands it, and he can then pass that on to his constituents to answer that question. If we have a new model, we in this House need to be able to scrutinise it. GPs’ rents and rates are reimbursed, but there is concern that if we have further PPPs, similar to the previous PFIs, GPs may be on the hook for ongoing premises costs. We must have crystal clear guarantees, so they understand what they are and are not accountable for. The 10-year plan states: “We will also work with NISTA to consider the opportunities for health that could be achieved through private financing of revenue-raising assets (such as key worker accommodation and car parks)”. That will set alarm bells ringing, as it looks like the Government will use key workers, or staff and patients coming into car parks, to generate funds. I would be grateful for clarity about what the Government actually mean by that statement, because this is a contentious issue. People know that we need to have funding coming into the health services, but where will those streams come from and what will they look like? If the 10-year plan is looking at revenue-raising assets, I am keen to understand exactly what that looks like. Overall, there is a desire in the 10-year plan, which is shared across the House, to improve healthcare. Nobody disagrees with that, but the criticism of the 10-year plan is that there is no delivery chapter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for securing this debate so that the Opposition can ask questions about what delivery will actually look like when it comes to improving the health of the nation.

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  A Member of Parliament’s partner has been accused of spying for China. The Minister has been asked this several times: have the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary specifically asked and summoned the ambassador to come to explain themselves, and if not, why not?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  You froze the threshold.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Men and Boys. This is about men and women, not men or women. It is about boys and girls, not boys or girls. It is crucial to set that out from the start. John Gray was clear in his book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. We all intrinsically know and feel that there are inherent differences in the way men and women deal with problems and have problems. Tony Blair spotted that women were struggling, and in May 1997 brought in a Minister for women to look across Government to try to sort out the problems facing women and girls. From a Conservative perspective, this is ideologically difficult because we broadly do not like to segregate people by splitting them into groups, but one thing that unites us is the obvious fact that there cannot be one without the other. We currently have a Minister for women and girls; we do not have a Minister for men and boys. During my six years in Parliament, I have looked at these topics. I started with the position that I did not want to see such a Minister, but all the data and metrics coming forward show that boys and men are broadly falling behind. I have come to the conclusion that without a Minister for men and boys, working with a Minister for women and girls, they will continue to do so. I will canter through some of the evidence. Let us start with health, my background. The most alarming stat is that suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50—three times more common in men than in women. Between the ages of 15 and 19, for every girl who takes her own life, three and a half boys do likewise. What about cancers? Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men, and more than two thirds of liver disease deaths are of men. That is a fourfold increase in death rates from liver disease over the past 40 years. Some might say that the Government are covering these issues in the men’s health strategy, which is partly true, but let us take something more tricky. I have done a lot of work on steroid abuse and image and performance-enhancing drugs. According to the Priory Group’s research, 10 years ago about 50,000 people were using such drugs. Now, 500,000 to 1 million people are using them to improve their musculature and the way they look. That use is heavily male dominated—so much so that at injection sites where people go illegally to use drugs, about 80% of needle exchange usage is related to steroid abuse. One in 10 gym-goers suffers from bigorexia—wanting to get more muscular. Those are inherently men-related problems. When I raise that with Government, I am first pointed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because it is sport-related, and UK Anti-Doping, but that covers elite sport, and not anything else. The Department of Health and Social Care says that it is a sport problem, an education problem, a Home Office problem or a justice problem. Therein lies the difficulty. To widen this further, let us move on to education. The Centre for Social Justice’s “Lost Boys” research shows that at GCSE, boys achieve on average half a grade lower than girls in every subject. At A-level, girls outperform boys on average by over a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Female students outnumber male students by three to two for university admissions. House of Commons Library research shows that in spring term 2024, boys were more than 1.5 times more likely to be suspended than girls, and more than twice as likely to be excluded from school. Let us translate that into employment, which falls under the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business and Trade. Statistics this month from the Office for National Statistics show that there are one million working-age men, aged 16-64, without jobs—the highest since October 2014. The unemployment rate for men is at 5.8%. The last time it was that high was in June 2015. The UK unemployment rate for young males aged between 18 and 24 hit 17% in the three months to December 2025; that surpassed the covid peak that we had, and is the highest rate since 2014. According to the Library, when it comes to young people not in education, employment or training—very topical—historically, young women were more likely to be out of work and education. However, the gap narrowed from 2010 and, since 2016, it has swapped over, with generally more young men being NEET than young women. What impact does that have on the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice? Some 96% of our prisoners are male; only 4% are female. The CSJ report shows that men make up 90% of hospital admissions for knife assaults. In 2022-23, boys accounted for 87% of homicide victims among people aged 16 to 24, and nine in 10 victims of teenage violence were male. Nine in 10 of our boys in custody said they had been excluded from school. I have not even mentioned the online world, which is covered by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are many stats that I could mention, but they all point to the fact that these are cross-departmental issues and, more importantly, cross-societal issues. I want to touch on the culture for men and boys. Many, many people are starting to raise the alarm about what is happening to young boys and men, from celebrities such as Gareth Southgate and David Gandy to think-tanks like the Centre for Social Justice, Equimundo and the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, and charities including Movember. Why is this happening? My analysis is that, over the past 20 or 30 years, we have been fantastic at championing what women should be, what positive role models should be and what they look like in society. That has been fantastic, and they have had great success from doing that. But, at the same time, we seem to have slightly diminished what it is to be a good man. It used to be a gentleman: someone who was polite, held doors and looked after their other half. Now, men are a little more unsure about that. If we add in the term “toxic masculinity”, we really have a problem. We do not often hear about toxic femininity. On the one side, we have told women exactly where they should be, what they should do and what they can achieve; on the other, we have taken away the good role model for men, and then potentially demonised them by calling them toxic. No wonder men and boys are struggling to find their way in the world. I often ask the question, “What is a good man in the modern world?” I am yet to find a good answer. Research shows that, when young boys or young men are asked, “Who is your role model?”, they will not give an answer and, if they do, the role models are few and far between. How scary for society that we are not getting the role models for young men to look up to or aspire to be. What evidence is there to back this up? The CSJ men in culture survey in 2025 was really helpful. It showed that 46%--almost half—agreed with the statement that modern dads are often treated as ineffectual or incompetent in popular culture. Some 76% agreed that today’s teenagers lack proper role models across popular culture. When Members are out and about, they can test that by asking, “Who do men look up to, and why?”, and see if they get an answer. It is actually a little worse than that. The “Lost Boys” report, also by the CSJ, cites Civitas polling that found that 41% of sixth form boys and girls have been taught, in school lessons, that boys are a problem for society. The Government are trying to deal with this, and they are well intended in what they are trying to do.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  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. Although the government purportedly aims to tackle the ‘root causes’ of misogynistic abuse, its argument relies on circular logic by claiming that misogyny itself is the cause of abuse.” Here lies the problem, because I have also been concerned about the assessment of the impact of the likes of Andrew Tate. We all know that he is misogynistic, but what is missed in the media debate is why so many young boys were drawn to him in the first place. He was a world champion kickboxer and he stands up for the masculine traits of being strong, forthright and protective, but he used them to manipulate his position—and young people—to create an empire with a criminal nature behind it. Unless we get at the root causes of what is going on, I fear that we will make the problem worse rather than better. A good example of that is the #MeToo movement. It was a fantastic movement in 2017, which did so much to uncover the horrendous sexual harassment and sexual assaults that went on. But it has had an impact: surveys in 2019 by the Harvard Business Review found that 19% of men said that they would be “reluctant to hire attractive women”. It also found that 21% were “reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interpersonal interactions with men”— for example, those involving travel—and 27% would avoid “one-on-one meetings with female colleagues”. That is because they are good men, and they were worried about the impact of how they could have been perceived. That is what happens when we do not have positive role models and a positive place in society for men and boys.