Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  To be charitable to the Government, there is actually £34 billion that could be spent in defence, given that they had another U-turn on the Chagos deal. Maybe there is a delay in the plan because they are trying to decide how to spend that money, or can my hon. Friend think of another reason?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The Government stand accused by not one but two of the most august Committees in this House of not playing fair in giving across the information. The Minister’s argument is simply that the Government have done nothing wrong. If that is the case, why would both of those Committees come to this House and lay those accusations?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Please could the Prime Minister explain to the House why, if he has done nothing wrong and process has been followed, he needed to force his MPs to vote against an investigation? Is it because he is worried that they do not believe his version of the truth?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  If it is not party political, why is it being whipped?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I also took part in that debate. The hon. Gentleman will remember and the record will show that the decision was suddenly made during the debate. The Government were going to vote against the Humble Address; the decision was made only because Members on both sides, particularly those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, put themselves forward and said that there was that option. We were having the debate in the first place because the Opposition compelled the Government to submit the papers. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the decision was just put out there by his side.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I usually come to this House to represent the people of Hinckley and Bosworth, and occasionally other people across the nation, by raising and debating pertinent issues. Today, however, my speech is aimed at Labour Back Benchers, because at the end of the day, regardless of what is said here, it is their decision. When there are 400 of them, it is they who will decide what happens in this debate. I therefore gently highlight two points: the standards that have been set, and doubt. The Prime Minister has set very clear standards since he has been in Parliament. It reminds me of the famous fable of the fox and the stork. Those familiar with it will know that the fox invites the stork in to have dinner. The fox serves soup but mischievously does so on a flat plate and, of course, the stork cannot eat it. The stork, not losing its temper, reciprocates and invites the fox back to have soup at its house. When the stork serves the soup, it serves it in a long, thin glass. Of course, the fox cannot get to it and loses its temper. The moral of the story is to treat others as you wish to be treated. The process that the Prime Minister is going through is due process by the standard he himself set, happening in retort to himself. We only have to look at some of the tweets that he put out. In January 2022, he said: “The Prime Minister is a national distraction. Millions of people are struggling to pay the bills, but Boris Johnson and his government are spending the whole time mopping up their own rule-breaking, sleaze and deceit. He’s got to go.” He followed that up by saying to Boris Johnson at the Dispatch Box: “There are only two possible explanations. Either the Prime Minister is trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his…own office. Come off it!” —[ Official Report , 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 807.] That is the standard he set himself before he became Prime Minister. Is he following that standard? We only have to look at his actions since he was elected to see that he is not. He gave a donor a pass to No. 10, he took suits, he took glasses, he appointed a donor as the football regulator and, of course, he was the MP who took the most freebies in the last Parliament—more than even the three or four below him in the list combined. He set his own standard but he does not seem to meet it. That fits with the way in which the Prime Minister came into Parliament. He talked about change, but he changed his promises. He said he would do things differently, and this is where I agree. When it came to the standards debate, the last Government said that it was House business and did not whip it. This Government have made a change: they are whipping it. The question is why. That leads me on to my next point. I have talked about standards, and now I will talk about doubt. I have heard today that some Labour MPs have no doubt in their mind about the Prime Minister, but I have equally heard that other Labour MPs do. That is really important. If they have no doubt, that is fine—they can vote against the motion. They will have to explain to their constituents the decision they make and why, and they will have to live with that. That is what an MP does, and it is what an MP should do. But the Prime Minister himself clearly has doubts about his Back Benchers, because he is whipping the vote tonight. If he was so confident that so many of them would come to the conclusion that there was nothing to see here, he would not need to whip it. We know the real reason: there are so many unanswered questions. Labour MPs might say there is no chink of doubt and that no question is unanswered, but how can they explain the inconsistencies from civil servants? Why has it taken months to get this sorted? Why has it required Humble Addresses and emergency debates, yet we are still having these debates nine months on? Why were comments in the PM’s box notes left empty? I do not believe that Labour MPs will show the same lack of curiosity that the Prime Minister showed when appointing Peter Mandelson, because they know they have a duty to their constituents to make sure they get it right. How do I know all this? Because my party has been here before. Many of us on the Conservative Benches are the remnants of what our party had to go through—we have seen it. I have spoken before about the sword of hypocrisy, which cuts both ways, but as we learned, it is the infection that gets you. Here we are, nine months on since I made that speech, and the infection is turning into sepsis. The patient is in real trouble. Labour MPs could learn from the Opposition, or they will share the same fate. The Conservative party is effectively a mirror to the Labour party that Labour Members did not ask for but would be wise to study. If they do not believe me, maybe they will listen to the Prime Minister, who closed his speech back in the debate on 21 April 2022 by saying: “if we do not pass this motion and take this opportunity to restate the principles, we are all complicit in allowing the standards to slip. We are all complicit in allowing the public to think that we are all the same, that nobody tells the truth and that there are alternative sets of facts.” —[ Official Report , 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 355.] That is what Labour MPs have to wrestle with, so I hope they listen to the words the Prime Minister said back then.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister came in, he said that he wanted to do things differently. He has had not one, but two, opportunities—one in an emergency debate tabled by the Opposition—to come to the House and answer all the questions so he would not need to go to the Privileges Committee. Will my right hon. Friend surmise why he has not come to the House to answer on two occasions?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Accountability starts from the top. We have heard from the FCDO today that the message from No. 10 was to “Get this f***ing done”. That was the political directive and everything else followed suit. That is exactly what Olly Robbins has said. We on the Conservative Benches know the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is whether Labour Back Benchers can handle the truth. Surely if they cannot, they must do something about it.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is very senior and makes an erudite point. We still do not know why the Prime Minister chose Mandelson—he has never said exactly why he did. We can all see the reasons he should not have done.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”: “‘I want the truth.’ ‘You can’t handle the truth!’” The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person. Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling. “By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.” The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast. Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it. Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister just clarify who he sees as responsible for the framework?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He is becoming a regular in these Westminster Hall debates, rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It seems that there is a competition to be the one who makes the most representations. On a serious note, last month in the debate on disability equipment provision the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke passionately and movingly about his personal experiences. We should treasure so much, in this House, people bringing their experience to try to make things better for their constituents, their family and the nation. The hon. Member deserves a lot of credit and I thank him for securing this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users for its work to ensure that wheelchair users are heard, and I thank the Wheelchair Alliance and others who continue to hold this House, Ministers and the Opposition to account on these issues. There is little disagreement in the debate about the nature of the problem. The Government themselves acknowledged last month, in the debate on disability equipment provision, that too many wheelchair users wait too long for the equipment they need, with knock-on consequences for their independence, health and ability to participate fully in daily life. That admission is welcome, but recognition alone is not enough. The question before us is how responsibility, accountability and improvement are to be delivered in practice. On that point, the picture is far less clear. Ministers have been explicit that they do not intend to publish a national strategy for wheelchair services. At the same time, the Government are embarking on a major restructure of the NHS in England. Understandably, that combination raises concerns about where national oversight will sit in the future, how consistency will be ensured and who will ultimately be accountable when services fall short. During last month’s debate on disability equipment, the Minister acknowledged the uncertainty created by the changes, noting that seemingly small gaps in practice or responsibility can have disproportionate impacts on the quality of life of disabled people. That is precisely why clarity matters. As the NHS is reshaped, wheelchair users and their families need to know who is responsible for setting expectations nationally, who is responsible for commissioning locally and who steps in when the system is not working. Without that clarity, there is real risk that the responsibility becomes fragmented and that unacceptable variation goes unchecked. Ministers often rightly point to the role of integrated care boards in commissioning wheelchair services for their local populations, but ICBs are being asked to do a great deal at once—to meet 18-week standards for community services, adopt the best practices set out in the wheelchair quality framework, and now to do so while operating with up to 50% reductions in headcounts and constrained budgets. So it is fair to ask whether those competing pressures risk pushing wheelchair provision further down the list of priorities rather than elevating it to where it should be. Going forward, who will be responsible for overseeing the wheelchair quality framework itself, and how are the Government assessing whether that is genuinely improving outcomes on the ground rather than simply setting aspirations? There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), previously undertook to look at the reuse and return of disability equipment, which could have real benefits for patients and for public value. Many will be keen to hear what progress has been made on that work and whether it will form part of a more coherent approach in provision. Finally, I raise the issue of innovation. In my constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, local businesses have shown how responsive, user-focused solutions can make a real, tangible difference. I mentioned Mounts and More as a primary example last time. As the national structure evolves, innovation like that must be supported rather than stifled. As the Minister responds this morning, wheelchair users and their families are listening carefully. They will want assurances that, amid the structural change, accountability will not be diluted, responsibility will not pass around the system, and there will be clear leadership to ensure faster, fairer access to the equipment that is so fundamental to independent living. I have three questions to the Minister on that basis. First, as NHS England is abolished through an NHS service modernisation Bill, can the Minister set out clearly which body will hold national responsibility for wheelchair service standards and oversight, and how Ministers will be held accountable when or should services for wheelchair users fail across different parts of the country? Secondly, who will be responsible going forward for overseeing and enforcing the wheelchair quality framework? What assessment have the Government made to date as to whether that is making a difference, and how we can have improvements? Thirdly—I touched on this in my intervention—many wheelchair users will have had provision from NRS Healthcare. Given the size and scale of the impact of NRS collapsing, there is real concern about servicing their contracts and making sure their wheelchairs are maintained. What have the Government done and what do they have to say on that topic?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Access to GPs: Bracknell Forest · Hansard source

  More

  Under the Labour Government’s new GP contract, Bracknell GPs and all GPs will have to refer through a single point of access. Can the Minister confirm that every referral deemed clinically necessary by a GP will be reviewed explicitly by a specialist consultant before being rejected or redirected?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Access to GPs: Bracknell Forest · Hansard source

  More

  The House will have heard that there was not an answer—that was a no. It is plain for all to see that this means patients will be blocked from seeing a specialist. They could potentially be assessed by a non-doctor, under Government pressure, with a target of one in four referrals being bounced. The Government’s own answers show that patients never appear on a waiting list. This is not about improving healthcare; it is about massaging the waiting lists, isn’t it, Minister?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gave us an extensive list of some of the spending commitments, but will he set out the exact spending commitments, and explain about the 1.5% required by NATO, which is not included in the defence spending? It was a great big list, but I have not heard the other side of it, and I should be grateful if he could provide those categories.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thoroughly enjoyed the Minister’s interview on Times Radio, in which he talked about his role in defence and his history and was asked about his leadership. I will not ask him about his leadership ambitions, but I would like to know where the DIP is stuck. Which Minister is it stuck with? Is it stuck with the Chancellor, or does the Ministry of Defence itself have a problem? I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  Those were the words that the Minister’s colleague read out in the previous debate, but I have no gripes about the Department saying the same thing. My question is about Jess’s rule and its interaction when there is a single point of referral. There will be a rub between GPs who say that someone needs to be seen because they might have a diagnosis of endometriosis and the system saying that those patients will be bounced back. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that rule will look like in practice, because endometriosis is a good example to demonstrate it.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Hon. Members have share powerful and distressing stories and experiences from their constituents. They are typified by Monica and I pay tribute to her for coming here to explain her story. We must recognise the reality faced by many women and girls living with endometriosis. For too many, it means years of pain and possibly being dismissed, and it definitely means lives put on hold. From a GP’s perspective, the diagnosis is frequently delayed because symptoms overlap with other conditions such as fibroids, adenomyosis, irritable bowel syndrome, PCOS or pelvic inflammatory disease. However, this debate is really about access, and there is a risk that current changes will make access worse, not better. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) is a stalwart for raising that point as a central issue. The last Government drastically increased testing. They rolled out 161 community diagnostic centres across the country, which carried out ultrasounds, MRI and CT scans, and blood tests. That has helped with diagnosis by ruling in endometriosis and, equally importantly, ruling it out. That is not to mention the elective surgical hubs, 48 of which were delivering gynaecological procedures by March 2024. Those were important steps, but capacity remains constrained. The first women’s health strategy, which committed to reducing diagnostic times for endometriosis, was also published in 2022. That strategy is now due to be renewed. In March 2026, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report from its inquiry into the menstrual health of girls and young women, which states that women’s health has not been “sufficiently prioritised” in recent proposed reforms to the healthcare system. The Government’s plan to renew the women’s health strategy is an opportunity to do so. Will the Minster confirm that those recommendations will be considered, and confirm when the renewed women’s health strategy will be published?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising her constituent’s case; Eleanor must be suffering, and the aim is to try to get more people into primary care so they can get the support that they need. That view is shared by both sides of this House and that leftward shift into primary prevention would be helpful. Access will be crucial, which is why some of the Government’s changes to that access—which I will touch on later—are concerning. Women’s health hubs were intended to improve access to care for menstrual problems. They were rolled out by the last Government with £25 million of investment and 39 out of 42 were in place. However, after Labour came in, it removed the national targets in January 2025, leading to an article from the Health Service Journal in April 2025 that stated: “Most integrated care systems lack a women’s health hub offering full services—contrary to government claims—according to research seen by HSJ.” It is not clear whether those numbers have improved and what the situation now looks like. I ask the Minister to provide any updates she has on those women’s health hubs, how they are functioning and whether they are fully operational; if she does not have that information—I know she is a new Minister—I would be happy to receive a letter on that. That leads on to Endometriosis UK pointing out that there have been shortages in trained clinicians and diagnostic specialists. We know that as we expand community diagnostic centres, that will be really important. Under the last Government, there was a workforce plan. We have heard talk of a workforce plan, but it has been delayed multiple times by the Government. I wonder whether there is a date for when that will be finalised, because it is really important. Finally, the heart of this debate is access to primary care. In a debate on endometriosis at the start of this month, the Minister for Secondary Care said: “We have introduced Jess’s rule, which requires GPs to rethink diagnoses for their patients.” —[ Official Report, 5 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 1068WH.] That rightly encourages GPs to rethink the diagnosis and refer when needed, but at the same time, every referral will now have to be routed through advice and guidance. In effect, it is moving to a single point of access, with a system explicitly aimed at diverting a significant proportion of referrals back to GPs. The new advice and guidance are aiming for about 25% of GP referrals to be diverted back to GPs for “10 high volume specialities”—of which gynaecology will be one—meaning one in four referrals will be bounced back under the neighbourhood health framework released 17 March. On the one hand, GPs are told to refer; on the other hand, the system is designed to send those patients back, which risks patients being kept on waiting lists and away from secondary and specialist care. That really matters for endometriosis. It is a perfect test case, and the new NICE guideline is crystal clear. Recommendation 1.1.3 states: “Gynaecology services for women with suspected or confirmed endometriosis should have access to: a gynaecologist with expertise in diagnosing and managing endometriosis, including training and skills in laparoscopic surgery; a gynaecology specialist nurse with expertise in endometriosis; a multidisciplinary pain management service; a healthcare professional with an interest in gynaecological imaging and fertility services.” All those services are gatekept as secondary care. Someone might have a normal scan in primary care, primary care treatments might fail and a GP might know that they will need to be referred to a specialist—yet they will not be able to get access. Women’s waits could become longer, not shorter. I have tabled multiple parliamentary questions on advice and guidance and have received only holding answers, despite the changes coming in on 1 April. I ask the Minister three questions. First, does she accept that mandating advice and guidance risks delaying referral? Secondly, how will this system avoid conflicting with Jess’s rule? Thirdly, will GPs retain the ability to refer directly into secondary care when clinically necessary? Endometriosis is already hard enough to diagnose and treat; for patients, it is harder still. If access is to improve, the Government must set out clearly how this new system will work. If they cannot do that, they risk making access worse, rather than better—and that is something none of us wants to see.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad the Minister has addressed many of the questions that I posed. One was about the designation of vape-free places, and I think there is consideration of what that will look like. How will the Government approach that? I would welcome it if she could at least set out the framework of what she might think about in her new role.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief. Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation. Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them. Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39. However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed. The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny. A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market. We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.