Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  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?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  And the WhatsApps?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a regret that I have had to summon the Minister here to answer questions, and surprise, surprise—

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  (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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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? 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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  “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. 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. 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. 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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.