Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  This was compounded even further only yesterday, when the statement was handed to the Leader of the Opposition with redacted information. That is absolutely shameful. The duty of His Majesty’s Opposition is to hold the Government to account. How can they do that if they do not get the information needed to make the best decisions for the country?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Defence Secretary was asked this morning on LBC where the funding was coming from. He said: “There will be no payments unless and until the deal is struck.” That does not answer the question. Who would go into a deal without knowing how they will pay for it? Which budget is the funding coming from—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget or the Defence budget? Is it included in the new defence spending or not? Those are questions that the Prime Minister refused to answer today. Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts on how we can get those answers now?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  To be fair to the Government, we may not know what their CVs show, so there could be business experience but it is just not on their CV.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  To be fair to the Labour Government, they have seen a surplus in self-assessment tax receipts, at £15 billion. The problem is that the OBR was expecting that to be £21 billion. We therefore have the prospect of them trying to find where we get that extra money from. The Government need to set out whether they are going to break their fiscal rules, cut public spending again, or increase taxes. Does my hon. Friend have any inclination on what they might choose, because I certainly have not heard anything?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The point is about the culmination of all the changes the Labour Government have brought in. This Government have indeed raised national insurance, and may need to do so again in future. However, the key point is what the ramifications of all these changes will be—the living wage change, the cuts to business rate relief, the red tape being introduced with the Employment Rights Bill and the national insurance contributions going up. That toxic concoction will kill off growth. That is the problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The way I see it, the problem that Liz Truss had with her Budget was that she did not set out her workings. The problem with Rachel Reeves’s Budget is that she did, and the country and the world does not believe it. That is far more detrimental to the situation we find ourselves in because she cannot get out of that problem. That is the difference between Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In an interview, the Prime Minister said that the reason for doing this to farmers was to be able to give them the NHS that they might need. Only a week later, the £10 million fund that was there to support the mental health of farmers had been taken away. It must stick in the throat of farmers when they are told that they are not a priority, that food security is not a priority, and that they will now not have the health service in place, despite having to pay the tax that is about to come into force.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The context is that back in 2010 the then Government had to borrow £158 billion. Fast forward another decade, and we had something called the pandemic, when we had to borrow £400 billion on top of that. Collectively, that is a great big difficulty. Five years ago, when the pandemic happened, I sat in this Chamber listening to all the interventions asking for more spending. Does the Minister not agree that that is the problem the Conservative Government dealt with?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The independent Regulatory Policy Committee looked at the Bill back in November and said that eight out of the 23 categories were “not fit for purpose”. Was that discussed? Given that the committee is independent, does the hon. Member give that point any credit when it comes to discussing the Bill?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether the outcome of his Budget was by design or by mistake? Did he mean to push 100,000 pensioners into poverty with his own analysis when he removed the winter fuel allowance, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to decimate family farming when he changed inheritance tax, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to tax GPs, care homes and hospices when he raised national insurance contributions, or was that a mistake? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether they are acceptable collateral damage in his path for change, or simply mistakes that need rectifying?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 February.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will have the support of both sides of this House when he goes to see President Trump on Thursday. If he fails to encourage the US to become the backstop for Ukraine, though, no matter how much he increases spending in the next couple of years, there will be difficulty. What conversations is the Prime Minister having about a backstop for Europe to make sure that Ukraine gets that support?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out that many people actually do have a good birth. I think that is really important, as there is a danger we scare potential mothers. There is good-quality care up and down the country, but it could be better. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) pointed to my work. I never actually served in Redditch in the obs and gynae and the paeds there; my time was done in the early 2010s over at Worcester. One of my favourite times as a doctor was being on the elective C-section list, and seeing the mothers go in, having the music there, and seeing birth after birth. It was fantastic. I also experienced one of the worst things that I have ever had to do as a paediatrician—being handed a lifeless baby and trying to sort that out. Worse still was an emergency C-section after a baby went into the mother’s bladder. Both went off to the intensive care units, and I had to go and speak to the father, who was expecting a normal delivery, to tell him what was going on. This is the reality of what happens, because having a baby does carry inherent risks. What we are talking about here is what we can do to mitigate them. I think that is the heart of what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) so eloquently set out; this is about the safety of mitigation. Her story about Bendy and Steph will stick with many people, because that is exactly what this House and the NHS should be trying to avoid. The aim should be to mitigate as much risk as we can. We have also heard talk about breastfeeding and post-partum mental health, which is really important. Those things should form part of a strategy. Not all patients receive a safe and timely assessment when they are being triaged, with instances of phone triage going unanswered and some women discharging themselves before even being seen or picked up, due to the delays. That was backed up by the Care Quality Commission, which found that unsafe practices in triage form the basis of 81% of the enforcement actions issued to providers and were found to be a safety concern in about a third of all inspections. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) pointed to the fantastic quality of care that exists, despite the conditions—we know that 18% of the NHS estate has been described as not fit for purpose and lacking the space for facilities. In my constituency, we have a plan to bring forward an improved maternity centre for Leicestershire. That, too, has been delayed in the future hospitals programme, but at least funding is coming forward to try to deal with that. Looking at the record of the previous Government, from 2010 to 2022, the rate of stillbirth decreased by 19.3%, the neonatal mortality rate for babies born over 24 weeks gestational age of viability decreased by 36%, and maternal mortality decreased by 17%. In 2015, the then Government launched the national maternity safety ambition, which was to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2025. The current Government have not yet set out an updated ambition for the next decade, so I would appreciate it if the Minister would bring that forward. As of December 2023, there were 2,361 full-time equivalent midwives working in NHS trusts and other core organisations. That was an increase of 3,700, or 18.9%, since 2010. On the other hand, the birth rate is falling while the number of midwives is rising. I recognise that births are taking place and are somewhat more complex than they used to be, due to things like diabetes, weight and age. It is really important that we have a plan to deal with that; I hope the Minister will comment on that going forward. That leads me on to community midwives and continuity of care, which we know is inextricably linked to improved care. A report by Cochrane, a non-profit organisation that produces global research to improve health outcomes, showed that women who experience continuity of care—in other words, seeing the same midwife or teams of midwives in pregnancy—have far better outcomes. During the last Parliament, funding was provided for the implementation of continuity of care models. As of April 2024, an additional £186 million had been allocated to improve the quality of care for mothers and babies and to increase the number of available midwifes in post. I further welcome the £6.8 million in funding provided by the previous Government to help to implement continuity of care for black and ethnic minority groups living in the most deprived areas. As we have heard in the debate, that is a real concern—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with her professional experience, pointed to the disparities we see in seeking behaviours among those from BAME backgrounds when it comes to having babies. We also saw that in our work on the Health Committee—I have asked the Minister to look at the two reports on litigation and the Ockenden report in the last Parliament. There is a lot of good cross-party work there that could help to inform current thinking. Of course, far more remains to be done in the area of saving babies. NHS England published its own delivery plan for maternal and neonatal services in March 2023. Commitments included updating the “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle by 2024 and introducing a national maternity early warning score and updated newborn early warning trigger and tracker to follow up the babies in those cases. The “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle is helping to provide the best practice for providers to reduce neonatal mortality and is rightly a major component of NHS England’s maternal and neonatal services delivery plan. Will the Minister provide an update on the implementation of version 3 of the care bundle? There are a few closing questions that I would like to pose. The maternal mortality gap has been reduced over the years, from five times to two times, but clearly we need to do more. What further action will the Government take to address the issue of the black and Asian maternal mortality gap, and what ambition will be set out? At the general election, the Government stood on a manifesto to recruit more midwives. Will the Government confirm how that fits into the long-term workforce plan? I am pleased that they have stuck with the previous Government’s plan, and are looking to amend it. In the new operational planning guidance, NHS England has committed to implementing the key actions in the three-year delivery plan. Will the Minister update us on progress against some of those actions, including the commitment to introduce a national maternity early warning score system and an updated newborn early warning trigger and track tool? As part of their response to the East Kent review, the previous Government established a group overseeing maternity safety services nationwide chaired by my former colleague, Maria Caulfield. Will the Minister provide an update on the national oversight group’s work? Are she or any of her ministerial colleagues part of those discussions? My final question is about litigation, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt). Under his chairmanship, the Health and Social Care Committee produced a report looking at different maternity models, including in the likes of Japan, and at how can we reduce the cost for taxpayers while improving clinicians’ ability to have the honest discussions we need, and to feel that they can come forward and blow the whistle. Birth is not about making babies; it is about making mothers—strong, competent and capable ones. We do that by supporting, respecting and informing mothers every step of the way. That is an admirable aim for this House and the NHS, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Cardiovascular Disease: Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start my speech, I think it was Gandalf who said: “A wizard is never late…Nor is he early; he arrives precisely when he means to.” I think it is correct protocol to be here at the start of a debate, although I for one would certainly like to see the Minister sprinkle his magic on this topic, because I hope that he will provide some enlightening answers in response to such an important debate. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his industrial strength in always securing these debates. I believe it is said that the man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones; the hon. Member for Strangford is moving the metaphorical health mountains, one Westminster Hall debate at a time. I raise my hat to him, because I have had the chance to respond to a debate of his at least half a dozen times. He always conducts himself in an incredible manner and provides incredible detail, so I thank him for that. If we can tackle the risk factors behind cardiovascular disease and identify it at an early stage, we can make a significant difference by reducing the number of people lost to premature deaths every year. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke movingly about his mother and his father. That was followed up by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who spoke about her father 13 years on; her father will be very proud to see his daughter in this debate. I am sure the parents of the hon. Member for Ilford South would be proud of his achievements as well, and the fact that he is raising such an important topic. I come to this topic as a GP, and this is pretty much the bread and butter of life for a GP: advising on healthy lifestyles, and managing blood pressure, angina, obesity, smoking, heart failure, strokes and many more conditions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who pointed out how important that is. It is not just the doctor’s role any more; this is the MDT approach, and actually a quality MDT really helps the GP to understand where they need to look and to manage their workload, which is so important not just for clinicians but, most importantly, for the patients. It is an honour to take part in this debate and to help to shape it. From a public health perspective, the last Government made significant progress on things such as calorie labelling, salt and sugar reformulation and smoking cessation, which are all contributors to cardiovascular disease. It was just three years ago that the NHS published its CVD prevention recovery plan, which set out four high-impact areas for every part of health services to focus on risk factors, detection and management. Examples include the rolling out of blood pressure checks in high street pharmacies and allowing people to measure blood pressure at home. The NHS long-term plan set out five ambitions to detect and treat people at risk of developing CVD. The plan has been revised twice, in 2022 and 2024. This work was reinforced by the introduction of the NHS digital health check in spring 2024, which aimed to prevent 400 heart attacks over four years. The National Audit Office report into CVD, which was published in November 2024, said the disruption to the NHS caused by the covid pandemic has had substantial impacts on elective care, and this has undoubtedly had an impact on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. We do not have to look back too far to think about lockdown and the effect that that had on people’s physical activity, their ability to seek help and some of the preventive and advisory medicine that would have normally taken place. Following the NAO report, the Government committed to reviewing the NHS health check programme. Will the Minister confirm the timescales for the review and when the reports on the outcome will be published? The hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed to cholesterol and lipids. Lipids are often not given the attention needed; they are hugely important when addressing cardiovascular disease, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning them. I have done constituency casework on this topic as a Back-Bench MP. He mentioned lipoprotein(a), and I have been questioning Ministers about the development of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia and the development of a familial hypercholesterolaemia service in Leicestershire. Although this is a complicated and involving space, given the great advances in the testing and understanding of lipids, it is really important that we get to the bottom of it to understand the environmental impacts that are causing this, as well as the genetic ones at play. To that end, work has also included looking at how bodies can track patients and the difficulties that familial hypercholesterolaemia services have in cascading to local people’s relatives, which I think is what the hon. Member for Strangford was pointing to. This is probably beyond the scope of this debate, but given the hon. Gentleman’s success with this debate, it would be great if he were to secure a Back-Bench debate on lipids. Will the Minister consider asking the Department to look at improving the clinical pathways for familial hypercholesterolaemia and the possible roll-out of screening for both patients and family members? I appreciate that this has to be done through an evidence-based approach. More people are living with multiple long-term conditions; that is no different for many people living with CVD, who are also living with other conditions, such as diabetes. That is why the last Government were developing the major conditions strategy to try to improve outcomes across major conditions, including cardiovascular disease, as well as cancer, diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders. Since the general election, Ministers have decided to go in a different direction, so will the Minister reassure me that the NHS 10-year plan will address the impact of those long-term conditions? As the hon. Member for Mid Sussex pointed out, inequality plays a role when it comes to cardiovascular disease, so I would be grateful if he would comment on that. I think the quote goes, “Study the past if you would divine in the future,” and I am always keen to gain insight from across the House of what has previously happened. I note that almost a year ago today, there was a debate held in the main Chamber on the topic of heart and circulatory diseases by the then MP for Watford, the brilliant campaigner Dean Russell, who talked about his experience of having a heart attack. Of course, the debate was just a few months before the general election, but it gives us a good insight into what the then shadow Health team were thinking before they came into government, which they were successful in doing. The then shadow Minister, now the Minister for Secondary Care, was responding. She said: “Labour has a mission to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes by a quarter within 10 years…Under our ‘Fit for the Future’ fund, we would double the number of scanners—speeding up heart and circulatory disease diagnosis”. What is the amount in that fund? Has it been deployed, and what is the timescale? What scanners were specifically commissioned for cardiovascular disease? The then shadow Minister went on: “We would also incentivise continuity of care in general practice, which would improve care in our communities for people living with heart and circulatory disease.” —[ Official Report , 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 940.] No one has to tell me, as a GP, about the importance of continuity of care, so will the Minister explain what this would look like in the GP contract? What incentivisation is being considered for GPs? The then shadow Minister went on: “That is why Labour will introduce a child health action plan that will put prevention at the top of the agenda”. Forgive me, but looking on the Government’s website and speaking to the House of Commons Library, I cannot see a report or plan on this topic; if I have missed it, will the Minister provide it? If there is not one, will the Minister set out the goals and timelines for achieving the plan, if the Department will provide them, and place it in the House of Commons Library? On research, the then shadow Minister went on: “That is why Labour’s regulatory innovation office would make Britain the best place in the world to innovate by speeding up decisions and providing a clear direction based on our modern industrial strategy, alongside a plan to make it easier for more patients to participate in clinical trials.” —[ Official Report , 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 941.] Eight months into the new Government, I believe a chair has not been found, so will the Minister update me on when the role will be filled? Given that this was the stated aim of the Labour party in the CVD debate, what conversations is he having with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about speeding up cardiovascular trials? I thought it fitting in closing to use the lines of Dean Russell, who used his closing remarks back then to point to the importance of data, education, protection and research in dealing with cardiovascular disease. I think the entire House can get behind that. The story of the hon. Member for Ilford South is a testament to the life advice that Dean gave to us then: “if anyone at home is worried, they should get checked. If they are concerned that they have symptoms, they should get them looked at. It is better to get rid of fears before the event than to wait for them to become a reality and have to deal with the outcomes of that.” —[ Official Report , 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 944.] I think we can all agree on that, too.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Cardiovascular Disease: Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Mundell. In perfect symmetry, this debate has taken a somewhat different procedural pathway than usual; that is indeed what can happen to patients with cardiovascular disease—things surprise them, although we have systems for dealing with cardiovascular disease. My concern is that some of the questions I raised on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition have not had the chance to be answered. I would be grateful if the Minister would take them away and write to me—perhaps I could put them in a letter. Would it be within the scope of the Chair’s powers to allow that to be the case, Mr Mundell?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the Leader of the House for the help of her office, please? The Government have produced an elective reform plan, a key plank of which is having 10 direct-to-test pathways. I have written two parliamentary questions to find out what is being considered, and have been told that 10 pathways are under consideration. I raised the matter with the Health Secretary directly this week. He answered: “If he wants to do a pop quiz, he can use Google.” —[ Official Report , 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 155.] Google says that plans for 10 pathways are being considered. Here is why it matters: the plan had one example that was found to be unsafe, was met with outcry from doctors, and has been removed. How can this House and the public hold the Government to account if we do not get answers to questions? I know that the Health Secretary has been under a lot of pressure. He has lost a Health Minister, and Prime Minister Llama—I mean Starmer—has produced a new one, but that is no excuse for the Health Secretary not being across the detail. Will the Leader of the House kindly write to him to ask what 10 tests are being considered, so that we can scrutinise them properly in this House?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Elective Care Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  This is the Secretary of State’s own plan. There was one example in the plan, but as an article in The BMJ on 17 January helpfully pointed out, that one example—which featured Sarah, who had sinus pain and hearing issues—was quietly removed from all online and future drafts after “a flurry of GPs pointed out that her treatment” was “wholly inappropriate.” That article went on to say that “Sarah can pick up her dose of unnecessary radiation along with her weekly shop.” On this part of the Government’s plan, The BMJ concluded: “Sarah’s story is one of over-investigation, fragmented and inappropriate care, spurious choice, and a lack of senior decision making at first presentation. Activity for activity’s sake has little to do with high quality care.” Does the Secretary of State agree with The BMJ, and if not, why not?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Elective Care Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour Government’s elective reform plan says that there are plans for 10 straight-to-test pathways. Can the Secretary of State name them, or give one example?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Listening is really important. I have heard from my local farmers that they are caught between thinking, “Is this a mistake?” and thinking, “Is this done on purpose?” Did the Government mistakenly not realise that they were going to bring all these family farmers into inheritance tax and agricultural change? Or, worse still, was it planned all along as a way to get the land for housing and some of the net zero targets? Either could be true. Does the hon. Gentleman have a preference over which one it is? Farmers want to know whether it was a mistake that should be rectified or it is an ideal policy driven by the Government.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for stepping in, and we agree that this SI needs to be passed with urgency. I also agree that it is not the place for a discussion of the CQC and its failings. She highlighted a couple of issues of concern, on which I would like to probe the Government a little, such as ending the exemption for sports arenas and cultural events. Given the Manchester Arena bombing and inquiry, it is clear that protections need to be in place, but the Opposition are concerned about the burden on small businesses and charity groups, which may well have to deal with the red tape involved in being regulated by the CQC. I would therefore be grateful if the Government considered producing an impact assessment of that red tape and how it will work in practice. CQC registration makes perfect sense when there are medical interventions in arenas, but how is it likely to work for a small football club run on a voluntary basis, or for a charity? At this point, I declare an interest: my brother is a sport and exercise medicine consultant and the medical director of the Lawn Tennis Association and so could in theory come within scope of some of these changes. As part of the consultation response, the Government stated that “further policy and operational consideration” was needed. Will the Minister clarify what that means in practice? I also want to ask the Minister a question about regulation 5 of the 2014 regulations, which set out the criteria for an individual to be considered a fit and proper person to take up a role as a director of a health service body or provider. The last Government started a review of the duty of candour expected of healthcare professionals. Will the Minister provide an update on when the Department will publish the outcome of that consultation, and have the Government made an assessment of how the outcome of the consultation may affect the provisions of the 2014 regulations as they relate to criteria for directors of health and care providers? Overall, the Opposition are supportive of the direction in which the Government want to go with this legislation. We understand the urgency of the timetable in front of us, but the concerns felt by Opposition Members will need to be addressed, so that we do not inadvertently overburden some of these institutions, which are already feeling difficulties when it comes to regulation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  What a mess this whole consultation has been. Let’s face it: the councils were going to have to jump or be pushed. As she said in her own statement: “I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier” authorities. In the spirit of working with local leaders, would she accept my legal invitation to meet all the borough leaders—cross-party—the MPs and the Leicestershire county council leadership to discuss what our shape would look like when it comes to devolution?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talked about the Treasury grant being up to 5%. As a matter of curiosity, what figure had Treasury planned to put in?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has talked about context, which is really important. This is a finance SI, but the wider context is that another Bill is being brought forward—the Employment Rights Bill—that is estimated to cost £5 billion on top of existing tax measures in the Budget. Does he think that that will have a direct impact on people who are trying to find work? There is a chance, surely, that more people will be let go and made unemployed because of this potential cost and impact.