Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jul 2026 · General Practice Partnership Model · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Health Secretary told The Times before the election: “I’m minded to phase out the whole system of GP partners altogether and to look at salaried GPs working in modern practices alongside a range of other professionals.” He later clarified, saying he would “sort of” phase it out over time. He has now gone, but is that perspective shared by the new Health Secretary?

• 14 Jul 2026 · General Practice Partnership Model · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving the time. I thank the Minister for his answer, but he did not quite clarify the position. I have asked him this question before, in a Westminster Hall debate. He said: “I do not think it is right to say that there are any specific plans to change the partnership model, but we recognise that there are a number of other ways, and we will always keep the way in which the contract is delivered under review.” —[ Official Report, 25 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 293WH.] Given the profession is looking at balloting for a plan B for general practice akin to NHS dentistry, will the Minister clarify whether this model is under consideration by the Government?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday 24 March 2026, the Leader of the House tabled a statement by the Chancellor on a Conservative Opposition day. So it does happen: he has done it himself. More to the point, however, I have always held him in high esteem for representing both sides of the House, and he has made it incredibly clear that this Iranian debate is super-important. Will he therefore undertake to write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) to ask him to come to the House and take part in that debate, so that at least the country has a hint of an understanding of the momentous and important discussion that is to take place tomorrow?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. The Home Secretary is boasting about the fact that hotel asylum seekers’ numbers are being reduced, but of course, they are being moved into houses in multiple occupation and the Government will not produce the figures of how many are going into HMOs. This means that places such as Hinckley and Bosworth are getting more HMOs. Will the Government commit to producing the data to show exactly where people are being moved from and to, so that we can see what is happening specifically around HMOs? That has not been released in the quarterly data, and I would be grateful for an answer.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Defence Secretary to Question Time, and simply pose a quick question to him, because we need some clarity about the Chagos deal. Will he confirm that it has been cancelled and that the money—the billions—that was going to Mauritius has now been transferred to defence spending?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Fuller inquiry called for a strengthening of the safeguards and the law in relation to looking after the deceased, but last week’s mortuary report on Nottingham hospital described some of the abuses and horrors that have taken place—bodies mislabelled, or even left decomposing. Does the Secretary of State share my fear that this could be a pattern across the system, and will he and the Health Secretary look into this to ensure that it certainly is not?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister would save a lot of time simply by publishing the impact assessment, which would answer every one of the questions that she is trying to find the answers to in her folder, so will she—yes or no?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Or guesstimates day, for want of a better pun. That is part of the problem. If the Government are so confident, why do they not produce the impact report so that they can justify this? At the end of the day, we have seen that those decisions are not isolated; they are different companies, making different decisions, but all with the same concern. It is a pattern: tax rises, more regulation, more red tape—a more toxic concoction. The Government will say that the deal is part of the answer, but Ministers cannot point to potential benefits while avoiding certain costs. The House of Commons Library is clear that the Department’s main estimate for 2026-27 does not include budget cover to meet the expected increase in pharmaceutical spending associated with the UK-US arrangement. That is the central problem. The Government say that the total cost in the current spending review period is expected to be around £1 billion, but the former Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), also said, “Total costs over the Spending Review period are expected to be approximately £1 billion. The final costs will depend on which medicines NICE recommends and the actual uptake of these.” That is an important admission, because the final cost depends on future NICE decisions and uptake, and other estimates are higher. The Library briefing cites analysis suggesting that spending could be around £1.7 billion by the end of 2028, and around £14 billion by 2036, depending on the assumptions. Is the £1 billion the central estimate, and if so, what are the lower and higher ends of the estimate range? Why will the Government not publish the modelling so that we can see? My next question is even sharper: where is the money coming from? We know from leaked WhatsApp messages that Labour MPs have been asking who they can tax to pay for benefits, so where is the money coming from? Both the House and the public are right to ask. The Government have said that additional costs will be funded from existing NHS budgets, with future funding settled at the next spending review. However, if the money is coming from existing NHS budgets, it is coming from somewhere within the NHS. It might be the workforce, services, capital or future growth, but it will not be cost free. As Jonathan Benger, the chief executive of NICE, put it, “If they choose to spend money on defence, they’ve got to pay for that somehow, either by raising taxes or removing money from somewhere else. If they choose to spend money more on medicines, similarly, that has to be paid for.” That is the reality. The former Secretary of State told the House that the Government would not cut NHS budgets to fund the pharma deal, but the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, later turned around and said: “The deal will be funded by allocations made at the Spending Review, where record funding for the NHS was secured. Future funding will be settled at the next Spending Review.” Those statements need reconciling. If it is funded from NHS allocations, that is NHS money. Can the Minister rule out any cuts from the frontline? Finally, I will turn to transparency. I want to point out that the UK-US pharmaceutical arrangement is not a treaty-based free trade agreement. It has not been through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process. We have not seen what is going on. The Government need to publish their impact assessment, and yet they cite commercial sensitivity. Of course, there is a way round that: the Minister could redact it and give that to the Committee so that we and this House can see what is going on. I will cut my speech short there. I will simply pose—

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I will dispense with the formalities to jump straight in. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) asked whether the Government have a clear, funded and transparent plan. Simply put, the Government appear to have made commitments they cannot properly explain, cannot fully cost, and cannot tell Parliament how they intend to pay for. We are of course talking about the UK-US pharmaceutical arrangement, which will see 0.3% of GDP in 2026, rising to at least 0.6% by 2036—or an overall medicine spend of 10% to 12% of the UK NHS budget by 2036. That may bring benefits and investment, it may avoid tariffs, and it may help some patients get treatment faster, but those benefits do not remove the three key basic questions: what will this cost, how will it be funded, and what will the NHS have to forgo as a consequence? Those questions remain unanswered, which is a running theme from this Government. Since Labour took office in July 2024, the pharmaceutical sector has issued a serious set of stark warnings. In January 2025, AstraZeneca cancelled its £450 million expansion near Liverpool, citing as a factor in the decision “the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous Government's proposal”. However, that was not isolated. In March 2025, the leaders of some of the UK’s biggest pharmaceutical companies warned that the country risked becoming “uninvestable”. That warning turned into decisions, with MSD cancelling its plans for a £1 billion research centre in London, Eli Lilly pausing its work on the Gateway Labs hub, and Sanofi saying that it would not make substantial UK R&D investment until it saw appropriate recognition of the value of innovation.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  What is the policy’s true cost? How will it be paid for? What will be displaced in the NHS to make it happen?

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Lung Cancer Screening Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that this is not part of the Minister’s brief. The speed of the programme’s roll-out is fantastic, but there remains a concern that if 60% of people have taken it up, 40% have not done so, despite having had an offer that could have been given to someone else who wanted to go. Can the Department take that point away and work out what is being done to close that gap of more than a third? There is clearly a greater opportunity to get more people in and get them detected sooner.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Lung Cancer Screening Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be here in an air-conditioned room while we continue this debate. It is poignant that it is so hot today, because we know how that can impact people with respiratory illnesses; we are probably talking about this issue at a very useful time. I too thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate. As has been said, lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in the UK, but it is also one of the cancers where early detection can make the biggest difference. I know that at first hand from my first year as a junior doctor working on a respiratory ward. It was eye-opening and harrowing, but also sometimes successful. I urge anyone who has the chance to visit a respiratory ward to see how important it is—and I believe that would make a difference to smoking rates. It is great that the hon. Member for Wokingham secured the debate, and great to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) secured the debate, because it is a good debate—it is a good day. This is really a success story. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), rightly told us John’s story; because of the screening that has been put in place, there will be plenty more Johns in the future, which is exactly what we want to hear. Often we talk about the problems, but this is a really good example of something positive that has come forward, and it all started under the previous Conservative Government. The roll-out of community diagnostic centres has fundamentally changed how we diagnose disease. There are now more than 170 centres across England, expanding capacity and bringing scans closer to where people live. Nationally, they have delivered millions upon millions of additional tests and have helped to ease pressure on acute services, with the clear aim of diagnosing conditions such as cancer faster and improving patient outcomes. Only this month I went to the first year anniversary of the opening of the CDC in Hinckley, a £24 million investment that has seen 59,000 patients through its door and is expanding. That means patients do not have to travel as far into Leicester or Nuneaton, and that they get their diagnoses more quickly and in a modern tech building. That is absolutely fantastic for my community, but I know that is replicated 170 times across the country. That matters because, when it comes to diseases like lung cancer, early diagnosis is everything. The sooner we can identify a problem, the sooner we can act, and crucially, the better the chances of survival. There is a real success story to talk about. The NHS lung cancer screening programme has its roots in work started by the Conservative Government, building on more than a decade of UK research and pilot studies. Following successful trials and local pilots, NHS England launched the targeted lung health check programme in 2019, focusing on high-risk groups in areas with the worst outcomes. That approach, using mobile scanners and proactive interventions, proved effective in detecting cancer earlier and reaching underserved communities. On the back of that success, and with a formal recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee in 2022, the Government announced a national roll-out in June 2023, committing to expand the screening across England and ultimately to reach full coverage by 2030. Since then, the programme has transitioned from pilots to a full national screening service and now forms a central part of efforts to improve cancer survival. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing on that trajectory. Why does this matter? The NHS lung cancer screening programme is now delivering at scale and showing clear results. About 2.8 million people have been invited, with 1.5 million checks completed and close to 1 million scans carried out. Some 6,000 to 7,000 cancers have been detected, roughly three quarters of which have been identified at stage 1 or 2, the earlier stages, in comparison with fewer than 30% before the programme started. About 1.4% of the scans lead to a diagnosis, demonstrating a targeted and efficient approach, and uptake stands at about 60%. In short, the programme is not only reaching those most at risk, but consistently shifting diagnosis to an earlier, more treatable stage and saving lives at a national level. As I say, we welcome the proposed expansion of the lung cancer screening programme, but it is vital that steps be taken to improve the uptake of screening and lung health checks. The fact that uptake stands at 60% means that 40% of those invited are not coming forward, and they are often the ones at highest risk. The question is why. Can the Minister set out what specific interventions the Government will introduce to increase uptake, particularly among the most deprived and hard-to-reach groups? To that end, can he confirm how the Government plan to deliver targets set in the national cancer plan, including the allocation of resources and funding for the lung cancer screening programme, over the next few years? As my new Scottish Conservative colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), may rightly point out, progress on lung cancer screening is uneven. England is now rolling out a full national programme; Wales has committed to an implementation, with the first invitations expected from 2027; Scotland remains at a pilot stage, with a national roll-out likely to be years away; and Northern Ireland is still in the early planning phases, without a programme in place. Given that variation, will the Minister set out what discussions are taking place across all four nations? Most importantly, what lessons are been learned from the English experience that can be actively shared to support a faster and more consistent delivery and roll-out across the UK? More broadly, this issue speaks to the need for a coherent approach to respiratory disease. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a clear attempt to take a more joined-up approach to the country’s biggest killers through a major condition strategy, which was announced in 2023. It explicitly placed chronic respiratory diseases, alongside cancer and cardiovascular disease, as one of six national priorities, recognising both its scale—it affects millions—and its contribution to avoidable ill health. A detailed framework, setting out a shift towards prevention, early diagnosis and management of those conditions, was published later that year. However, although the direction of travel was established and widely consulted on, the strategy never reached full publication or implementation, because there was a general election. This Government have taken a different route, with modern service frameworks. They have committed to developing modern service frameworks for frailty, dementia, mental health and cardiovascular disease—just a few areas—so I ask the Minister directly: will the Government develop a modern service framework for respiratory disease? If not, how do they intend to drive the same level of improvement for a condition that affects millions and underpins outcomes in lung cancer? We are all serious about improving cancer survival. Across this House, we all have that ambition, but we must match our ambition with delivery. Just like the 10-year plan, the delivery chapter is missing. I worry that the same could be argued for respiratory conditions. I just hope that I am proved wrong.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Did you meet Andy?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Will the Chancellor explain why she is now clawing back VAT on the compassionate medicines scheme, which means that this Labour Government are taxing free cancer drugs given to children? Will she reverse that decision? Patients are starting to miss out on the treatments they really need.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have set out a great ambition, but the Minister is talking about neighbourhood health centres and we are talking about community hospitals. Where do they dovetail and how do they fit? What definition is she using to put this together?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hammer this home, but every single point that the Minister has made has been about community services. She is spot on, but the question is where community hospitals fit in. Are they the correct vehicle that the Government want to use to help deliver some of those services, or are the Government moving away from the community hospital model and into further hubs? Both would be reasonable approaches and could be defended or pulled apart. The question is what the Government are choosing, because it is not clear from the Minister’s answers which it is.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing the debate. It is fantastic to have the chance to champion community hospitals and what they stand for and provide. I put on record my thanks to the Hinckley and Bosworth Community Hospital, which does fantastic work in my area, in Hinckley. Also, only last week, I was lucky enough to go to the one-year anniversary celebration for my community diagnostics centre—a £24 million investment, set up by the last Government, that we have now carried through. To date, it has served more than 59,000 patients, and it is expanding the delivery of services that it can provide, meaning that services that are provided within the community and people do not have to travel to the likes of Nuneaton or into Leicester. That is exactly what the leftward shift is all about: bringing those services to the community. It may come as no surprise that I have a personal connection to community hospitals—you might expect me to talk about my job, Sir Jeremy, but it actually began much before that. My father was a GP down in Dorset; on Christmas days, before we were allowed to open our presents, we used to visit the community hospital and do the ward round with all the patients. As a child I really looked forward to that—first, because I got to meet Father Christmas, but secondly, because of the family feel of that community hospital had. That is the essence of what these places provide: that ability to be within our communities, to give the support and the family feel that we want to keep hold of and treasure because it is so important. Especially when dealing with healthcare, we often forget about wellbeing, and that is what these community hubs can provide. Looking at the Government’s direction of travel, it very much sets out how neighbourhood health centres should look, but it is not quite so clear about how that dovetails with community hospitals. How do integrated health hubs fit in with community hospitals? It is not clear in the 10-year plan, and it is certainly not clear in the documentation coming out. Given that the Government are expecting ICBs to commission those hubs, and given some of the stories that we have heard—for example from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who is championing and fighting for the services in her area—the worry is that the Government are not explicit on what ICBs should be doing on community hospitals. We have this intention and general belief, but the actual direction of how this will work is clouded. I therefore pose a question to the Government: are they considering a national strategy for community hospitals—or even a definition? That is one of the biggest problems when we look up community hospitals. What is the definition of a community hospital? Are community diagnostic centres included in that, or not? What about intermediate care? What about step-down care? What about clinics that provide endoscopy? I must admit that, when I look at community hospitals, I am never quite sure what the definition is; looking into the detail, I struggle to find any definition that the Government have come up with. Those are key questions about the leftward shift. I think we all agree that that would be welcome, but it is about the delivery plan. Of course, the 10-year plan has no delivery chapter, which again leads us back to the questions for the Minister today. I appreciate that this is not her portfolio, but these questions will keep coming time and again: how do we actually deliver, and what does this look like in the guise of neighbourhood health centres? On that point, when it comes to delivery, I would like to pose something to the Minister: it was reported in the news over the weekend that NHS capital spend could be under threat to fund the defence investment plan. I hope she will be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that that is categorically not true—but that is going to be important. That leads me on to another question that I would like to pose to the Minister. The response to a written question about the abolition of NHS England and its impact on services stated: “The abolition of NHS England is causing no disruption to the development of new services.” Will the Minister state that from the Dispatch Box? Certainly, from what we are hearing on the ground, the ICB changes—losing 50% through redundancies—are having a significant impact on the way in which services are planned and delivered. I am therefore keen to understand the rationale behind that statement. To finish where I started, community hospitals really are the healthcare that feels human. They are local, they are close to home and they are something that we across this House should aspire to. That family approach is where we all want to be; it is how we get there that is the question for the Government.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary said on the weekend that a lot of time and effort had gone into the defence investment plan, but when pushed he said that he had not read it. The former Defence Secretary and former Minister for the Armed Forces have read it, and they resigned. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that he had read it in full. Why did he decide not to resign when his two colleagues in the Department did resign?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Waiting Lists: Unreported Removals · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that the elective waiting list target was met largely—largely—because a record number of patients were removed from waiting lists in March without receiving treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many patients were removed in March and what happened to them, and whether she is satisfied that they definitely did not need treatment?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Waiting Lists: Unreported Removals · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just the Conservatives who are raising this issue; it is patients and the Health Service Journal . The answer is that 350,000 people—a city the size of Coventry—were wiped off the waiting list with no treatment, and that is 100,000 more than the month before. If there is genuinely nothing to hide, the Government should not worry about putting out the figures. Will the Minister commit to a review to find out what has happened to those 350,000 patients, or does she believe that waiting list targets should be met by removing patients from the figures rather than actually treating them?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Could we have a debate in Government time on performance and image-enhancing drugs? Last month, UK Anti-Doping released a survey that looked at 1,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 25; it showed that a third of them had taken IPEDs, and over 40% had seen repeated adverts for them online. This is a growing concern that I have been raising for the last number of years, and I am really concerned that the situation will get worse before it gets better. Could the Leader of the House use his offices to grant a debate on the subject in Government time, in which we could explore this issue as it relates to health, sport and education?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister points to the important partnership between community pharmacies and dispensing GPs. There are concerns about the change in the EMIS module and the future for dispensing practices. If the Minister does not have the answers here, will he write to me about what is happening with EMIS and where he is looking to take dispensing practices in the future?