Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate. It is important that we discuss community pharmacies, given their place not only in the health landscape but in the hearts of many of my constituents and people across the nation. I, too, have visited multiple pharmacies, both in my shadow role and as an MP, and I, too, went to my local pharmacy for my flu jab, back in Newbold Verdon. I am very grateful to them because I found the system very easy to use and to get into. It is really important to see that system change that makes it more accessible and easier for people to make the choice to improve their own health and protect others. There are positives in this debate that we must celebrate. Community pharmacies are one of the most accessible parts of our health service. For millions of patients, particularly older ones, those with long-term conditions or those living in rural communities, the local pharmacy is often the front door to the NHS. They provide expert advice, dispense vital medicines, support prevention and increasingly deliver clinical services that help to reduce pressure on GPs and hospitals—as a former GP, I am very grateful for that—and that is why this debate is so important. Ministers want community pharmacies to do more, but I worry that, at the same time, they are actually making it harder for pharmacies to survive. This debate is timely, given that the Government agreed the community pharmacy contractual framework for 2026-27 last Friday. I expect that the Minister will reference that, but I will let Community Pharmacy England’s response speak for itself: “Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough—for this year or the future.” It went on to say: “It means the opposite…the sector is in a critical position, and that we now need urgent work on a sustainable long-term solution, including reform of the contract, funding and reimbursement model.” Given the Government’s enthusiasm for reviews and long-term plans, I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on what meetings he will have to work on the framework and the wider funding model, along with what changes we can expect and in what kind of time. The reality is that pharmacies continue to face mounting financial pressures, many related to the Government’s tax rises. Over the last two years, the Government have made a conscious choice not to exempt community pharmacies from their taxes and have even voted against that. In the first year of this Labour Government, pharmacies faced higher employer national insurance contributions alongside increases in the national living wage. In the second year, they have lost the temporary business rates support that they relied on, with the replacement not matching the rise in their costs. The sector is clear that much of the additional funding announced through the new framework will simply be absorbed by those rising costs. The headline findings from Community Pharmacy England’s latest “Pharmacy Pressures” survey, due to be published later this month, show that 100% of pharmacies report that costs are higher than at this time last year and that three quarters are losing money, while 86% say that it is taking longer to procure medicines and 76% say that patients are already being directly impacted by the pressures on their businesses. The National Pharmacy Association put it plainly last Friday when it said it was concerned that much of the funding increase will need to be spent on increased costs, including national living wage contributions, inflation and business rates rises, “rather than addressing chronic under-funding”. Those figures tell a simple story. The Government are asking pharmacies to do more while making it more expensive for them to keep their doors open. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor regarding business rates for community pharmacies? Has he even raised the sector’s concerns with the Chancellor, and if so, what response did he receive? Will he press for a package of support similar to that made available to other sectors such as pubs, to help with those pressures? The rising costs also cast a shadow over the Government’s plan to expand independent prescribing through community pharmacy. We can all see that independent prescribing has enormous potential. It could improve patient access to care, make better use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise and help to deliver the Government’s ambition of shifting care from hospitals into the community. But the sector itself is not convinced that the necessary investment is in place. Community Pharmacy England has said: “we are not persuaded that sufficient investment is being made to enable the full and effective introduction of IP…given the workload, enhanced clinical responsibility, clinical governance and infrastructure requirements that it will entail.” It went on to warn that “the addition of IP to the CPCF risked being set up to fail.” That should concern us all in this Chamber. If pharmacies are expected to become a cornerstone of neighbourhood healthcare, as set out in the NHS 10-year plan, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary workforce, governance and infrastructure are in place to support that ambition? What response does the Minister have to those concerns, and what steps will he take to ensure that independent prescribing is the success we all want it to be? Alongside the financial pressures, pharmacies continue to face significant challenges in the medicine supply chain. Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association earlier this year highlighted rising prices for a number of cancer medicines and concerns about the impact on availability. At the same time, the number of medicine price concessions has reached record levels. There were 204 concessions agreed in April, surpassing the previous record set only a month earlier. Community Pharmacy England has now confirmed a new record of 219 concessions for May, with further requests still under negotiation. Behind those numbers are real patients facing delays, uncertainties and difficulties accessing the medicines that they need. Community Pharmacy England has warned that those figures reflect the continuing fragility of medicine supplies in the supply chain and that the wider instability from the middle east crisis is adding pressure. Of course, I cannot hold the Government responsible for that, but it is their duty to look at that volatility and to reassure patients and the sector that resilience is being put in place and measures are being looked at. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on what that looks like. Before I conclude, I will raise an important point that is affecting dispensing practices. We have not talked about those today, but they are part of the real fabric of the community network. Dispensing GPs provide essential primary care medicine supplies to 10 million patients in remote, rural and coastal communities, where access to a community pharmacy is limited. For many patients, they are the primary point of access to medicines. Earlier this year, dispensing practices were informed that the central NHS England funding for the EMIS web dispensing module would cease and that the costs would instead be passed directly to the practices. The proposal generated significant concern among dispensing practices, the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Concerns centred on the lack of consultation, the timing of the changes and the potential impact on the sustainability of dispensing services. Following representations from the sector, implementation has now been paused and central funding has continued. I welcome that decision. However, the uncertainty created caused understandable concerns for practices, their patients and the planning of future services, particularly for those in rural communities. When I wrote to the Minister to raise that issue, he responded that an assessment will take place this year of the long-term provision of dispensing modules and that NHS England will consult relevant bodies such as the Dispensing Doctors’ Association as part of that. Will the Minister provide further details on that assessment today? What criteria will be used? Who else is being consulted? If NHS England is going, who will take that work on? When can dispensing practices expect greater certainty about future arrangements? I would also be grateful if the Minister addressed concerns about the discount abatement—what is called the clawback system. Dispensing practices continue to argue that the current arrangement creates inequalities for them compared with community pharmacies. Equally, community pharmacies are upset about the clawback, so there is an obvious tension. Given that the Government are looking at the long-term structure, I would be grateful if the Minister took that away and considered how we can modernise that aspect to ensure that there is equity in the system as well as an understanding from both sides. Ministers have made it clear that they want pharmacies to play a greater role in prevention and neighbourhood healthcare and in reducing pressures elsewhere in the NHS. We in the Opposition agree, yet throughout this debate we have heard concerns from across the sector about rising costs, medicine supplies, independent prescribing and dispensing services. The question is whether Government policy is keeping pace with the expectations being placed on pharmacies, or whether Ministers are making it harder for the sector to deliver the growth and innovation they say they want to see. Community pharmacies have repeatedly demonstrated their value to patients in the wider health service. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to address those concerns and provide greater confidence to a sector that remains vital to communities up and down this land.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  “I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor, talking about Labour MPs, states: “Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” Is that the same experience the Minister is having in every meeting he has?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to try to get some clarity, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) asked when there will be written explanations of the draft changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). In both answers, the Minister talked about process. Well, process dictates that there should be written answers, so when will we see them in this House?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is making himself the data controller of all the data that will be in place. What impact does that have on the sections he has just talked about?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I posed this question to the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he was last at the Dispatch Box: where is the DIP stuck? He seemed to point the finger at the Treasury, but can I get an update on where the DIP is actually stuck?

• 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.