Luke Evans MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it. On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that “it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”. The National Association of Local Councils said: “We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”. CPRE nationally says that that it is “concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.” That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts. This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government. I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate. Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why I wanted this debate, and many colleagues are here to raise that exact point.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Glaucoma Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  Is there a plan or a strategy for considering a glaucoma pathway? Will the Government also commit to the workforce? The Health Service Journal has noted that the plan, as it stands, has no delivery chapter. Where is the delivery chapter for the 10-year health plan?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Glaucoma Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will probably be aware of the Full Fact and Sky News report that examined the speed at which appointments are being delivered. The Government have indeed delivered 4 million appointments, but under the last Conservative Government there were 5 million appointments within a similar time period, so we are actually seeing a slowdown in appointments. How will that affect people with eye conditions or other health conditions?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Glaucoma Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is a colleague both in my region and in primary care. His powerful testimonies about patients and what they suffer are exactly why he is an asset to this House. He presents information that we all need to hear when we debate health issues. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about the fantastic Perth royal infirmary. It is lovely to hear a success story. We do not hear enough success stories about the NHS, because the good news, despite what we hear in this place, is that the NHS broadly does a fantastic job for many patients, and we should never forget that. The experience he described is what we want to see across the country when it comes to dealing with glaucoma. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nothing if not tenacious and consistent because, when I checked the records, I saw that in April 2024 he introduced a similar debate to raise this cause and to make sure people hear about it. He is a credit to his party and the people he represents when it comes to raising health issues. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about NHS working groups. I have worked in places that have had PEARS—primary eye care acute referral schemes. Patients love them, GPs love them and I think the opticians and those who work in the services love them too, because they allow better joined-up care, which is what we all want. Glaucoma is actually a spectrum of conditions. Ocular hypertension affects 3% to 5% of people in the UK aged over 40. Primary open angle glaucoma affects about 2% of people in the UK older than 40, but when we break that down, it affects 1% of people aged 40, 3% of people aged 60 and about 8% of people aged 80. With a growing elderly population, we can see why this is a problem. Primary angle closure glaucoma affects about 0.4%. There are also some rarer ones, but the point is that glaucoma affects about 700,000 people, who could potentially go blind. Are the Government considering the call of the Association of Optometrists, and it is a simple one, to commission a national glaucoma pathway? I ask the Minister to think about that. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on glaucoma is very clear: “If any of the following risk factors for glaucoma are present, consider advising people to have their eyes examined by an optometrist…Older age. People 60 years of age or older should be examined every 2 years until they are 70 years of age, when they should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Family history of glaucoma. People older than 40 years of age who have a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with open angle glaucoma should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Ethnicity. People older than 40 years of age who are of black African family origin should be examined…Certain people are entitled to…NHS-funded eye examinations by optometrists…These include people …With a family history…as described above…Aged 60 years or older…In receipt of certain benefits” or “Who have been advised by an ophthalmologist” to have a follow-up. This is really important, as we have heard today, when we are talking about awareness. People should get their eyes checked, check their availability and, if they are 60 or over, make sure they understand that they can get their eyes checked through the NHS. This issue was raised in a debate at the end of April 2024, just a few weeks before the election. It is worth looking at what was said by the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), who went on to be a Health Minister: “I have a degree of frustration with the Government’s approach to the issue. Given the statistics, I would like to see the Minister commit today to turbocharge access to ophthalmology services and make eye tests more commonplace for people who do not routinely test their eyes, but also to get people access to eye care services once conditions have been diagnosed.” —[ Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 51WH.] And he finished his remarks by saying: “We will support the Government in the remaining weeks or months that they have to get this policy right, but mark my words: the next Labour Government see this as a priority and we will act.” —[ Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 53WH.] Now that we are one year into this Government, it is worth checking the record to see whether that priority has been given. Forgive me for being a bit of a pedant, but I checked Hansard to see how many times glaucoma has been mentioned. There have been four mentions since the election, only two of which were in the context of health. One mention was made by the hon. Member for Leicester South last month, and the other was made by the hon. Member for Strangford in a debate on rare retinal disease. That does not seem like it is a priority. I am being a bit of a pedant, but I also looked through the 10-year plan again, and there were two mentions of eye care, one of which was “ophthalmology” and the other was “optometrists”. The Minister will argue that it is a strategy document, but it raises the question: what is the plan for glaucoma? The last Government concentrated on several areas. These included early detection and greater use of community optometry, with an emphasis on the importance of routine tests. There was £500 million a year for sight tests and optical vouchers, supporting more than 12.5 million NHS sight tests provided free of charge. The budget was demand-led rather than limited by volume, and the public were encouraged through campaigns and social media advertising to get tested. Integrated care boards expanded local services for minor and urgent eye care, pre- and post-cataract checks and glaucoma referral filtering. The post-covid backlog recovery programme also received £8 billion. I am getting death stares from you, Mr Pritchard, so I will move on to my main points and my questions for the Minister.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023, Twycross zoo and I secured £19.9 million from the levelling-up fund. I am pleased to report that, when I visited a couple of weeks ago, spades were in the ground for the global conservation centre. I thank Hinckley & Bosworth borough council, Dr Rebecca Biddle and the chief executive officer Craig Dunkerley. The centre is very important because it will not only bring jobs and tourism, but, most importantly, it will train the conservationists of the next generation. Can we have a debate on why a centre like this is so important in teaching the next generation how to protect endangered species, particularly orangutans, which this centre will focus on?

• 2 Jul 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why. Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Transport Infrastructure Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and the Chancellor had the joy of coming to my constituency to see the MIRA technology park last week. They will have come via the A5. The previous Prime Minister talked about the funding that would be submitted via the A5, but in the spending review that money seems to have dropped, so will the Chancellor commit to the same funding for the A5 that we had from the last Government, because it is really important for my area?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dame Siobhain, and to be here. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on a topic that I am all too familiar with, having spent time as a GP. This place may not be so familiar with the inner workings of GP practices, so it is fantastic to have the chance to discuss it. I declare an interest: many of my immediate and wider family are GPs, and it is important to put that on the record. This debate has allowed us to discuss a huge variety of things, including the Carr-Hill formula and the QOF. We did not touch on DES and LES—directed enhanced services and local enhanced services. Rural dispensing practices are a really important funding stream. We have talked about the partnership model, retention, joining up services, ICBs and their toolkits, the interaction with the planning department and rurality, which has a particular impact on services in my area. I want to pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Fair play to her for going out and shadowing a GP to see what their life is all about. At the heart of what she said was the good care that goes on. If we were to believe the Daily Mail , every GP is on the golf course and only cares about the money. The money is important, but GPs care far more about the patients and the quality of care they give. That is what drives them and gets them out of bed each day. We in this house must not forget that when we discuss healthcare, because it is important. We will get far better healthcare than ever before in the last few decades, and we must not lose sight of that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot for giving me my first chance as a shadow Health Minister to debate general practice and ask the Minister some questions. Without further ado, I will turn to those questions. First, what is the Government’s current position on primary care and its models? In an interview in The Times in January 2023, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said: “I’m minded to phase out the whole system of GP partners altogether and look at salaried GPs working in modern practices alongside a range of other professionals.” He went on to speak at events held by the King’s Fund and the Institute for Public Policy Research, where he acknowledged that he has “observed a GP partnership model in decline where very soon we’re going to have more salaried GPs than partner GPs” and that the “status quo is not an option”. Then 18 months ago, just six months before the election, the Secretary of State stated, “What we were minded to do is to sort of phase it out over time. I’m still not sure whether or not the GP partnership can survive in the longer term. But I haven’t reached a sort of firm conclusion that says that it shouldn’t.” In the light of that, and given the importance of the partnership model, could the Government clarify their position with regard to the partnership model and any other models that are being considered?

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is spot on. I posed my question to the Government because we know that primary care is one of the most efficient parts of the NHS. Why? Because the people running those businesses—they are businesses, and we have to be open and honest about that—pay attention to where the money comes in and goes out. They take full pride in it, first, because they care, and secondly, because their salaries are paid from the profit that comes out of that. Again, “profit” is a dirty word that people do not like to use, but it is the reality of what we are dealing with when it comes to how we break down the funding. The Government have proposed to get rid of NHS England, and it is still unclear not only how much that will cost, but how much it will save and where the administrative burden will fall. On top of that, we do not know what will replace the partnership model if we lose it, and this is the question to be asked. Given that it was only six months before the election that the Secretary of State stated his intent, I too am keen to find out the answer. I have a second question to pose to the Government. There are concerning reports this month in the Health Service Journal , which has had sight of a leaked version of the Government’s 10-year plan to improve the NHS. It says that the plan will push back the Government’s ambition to increase the share of NHS spending on primary and community care to 2035, rather than 2029 as originally promised. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports? When it comes to funding, the Government raised taxes directly on GPs as part of the national insurance increase. Has the Department made any assessment of how much of the £886 million uplift that has been allocated to GP practices will be needed to meet the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions? I turn to the figures for the ARR scheme. The Government announced in April that they thought they had reached 1,500 new GPs, but as the RCGP pointed out at the time, although having “more GPs employed in the workforce is encouraging, when considering full time equivalent GPs—which gives the most accurate picture of the GP workforce and the care and services GPs are able to deliver for patients—the numbers published today are lower, at 851 GPs”. The increase is encouraging, but when we dig into the data, it appears that we are simply seeing more locum doctors coming back into the scheme. I would be grateful to understand exactly how the numbers are made up, and where the inference of 1,500 GPs comes from. More importantly, where is the scheme going in the future? Is it time-limited? Will it continue? Will it be expanded and, if so, what does that look like? Although it is an important part of addressing provision, we also need to understand exactly what is going on. Initial reviews of the data suggest that appointments have not kept up with the pace of the introduction of GPs, so I am interested to understand from the Minister why, despite the supposedly new GPs coming in, the number of appointments has not increased proportionately. I would be grateful for any comment on that. Finally, I turn to recruitment. Training new GPs has understandably been seen as the priority when it comes to solving the long-term workforce problems in England. As Pulse magazine puts it: “This is probably one of the areas of workforce planning that could be considered a success. Health Education England, which has been incorporated into NHS England, has been able to meet its target of over 4,000 new GP trainees a year.” The NHS workforce report, launched under the previous Government in 2023, made commitments to increase that. It set goals to increase the number of GP specialist training places to 6,000 by 2031, ensure that all foundation-year doctors do a rotation in general practice, and require GP registrars to spend the full three years in general practice. There has been progress, but along with progress come new problems. The British Medical Association has warned that up to 1,000 GP registrars could face difficulty when qualifying in summer 2025 without funding for GP practices to recruit newly qualified, unemployed or underemployed GPs. What active steps are the Government taking to avoid that, and what support will they be offering newly qualified GPs?

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It seems pertinent to ask this question now: the Australian scheme I mentioned is one way that another country has dealt with the issue. Would the Government consider placing overseas doctors in the areas of most need? Is that something under consideration?

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, what would the Minister say to junior doctors, now coming to be registrars, who will be looking for a job? Should they look to the ARRS as the way forward when they qualify? What will he say to them if they do not get a job? Should that be the route they look to? Is it an expansion he is asking for? What are the alternatives for those graduating in August?

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about contracts, which is an appropriate point to question him again on his Government’s position on the GP partnership model. It is not clear what that looks like from any of the documentation, so I would be grateful to understand that or, if the Secretary of State is considering new models, what they are and when we can see them.

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear that the scheme is working well, but the question is—as the hon. Member would know if he had been here for the start of the debate and all the way through it—what does it look like going forward? In other places, are locums simply being stepped into the ARR scheme because there has been a shift in the way that GPs commission their work and PCNs are looking to deal with that? That is the question at the heart of it. We seem to be training more GPs than ever, yet at the same time, we have a disproportionate number of people at the top end who are not able to find work. It is important to build up multidisciplinary teams that take account of the pharmacists, nurses and mental health workers around GPs, and I welcome the fact that the ARR scheme allows that. It has been widened to get more funding but, as the hon. Member will know, there is a discrepancy in how much doctors are funded for and there are limitations on how long they can work in the scheme. If I were to return to practice, I would not qualify under the scheme. The Government need to pose these questions; although the scheme is welcome, does it solve the whole problem? I do not think so, and my final set of questions relates to that. We have seen a trend in international medical graduates coming to work in the UK, with the number of international medical graduates overtaking domestically trained medics for the first time in 2023. Have the Government considered something similar to the Australian scheme? Australia classifies locations using the modified Monash model or the Australian statistical geography standard to rank areas from major cities to remote regions, and then prioritises overseas doctors into the areas of most need. That could help to deal with the disparities across different parts of the UK. Will the Government consider that model in attempting to address those disparities? Whether it is right for the UK is for the Government to decide. Hospitals might save your life, but your GP has been quietly guarding it for decades. That fact is often lost in our debates, so it has been a privilege to remind the Government, the House and the public of that fact today. I look forward to the Government’s response.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned the Government’s annual reports, but at other times he has said that they will issue written ministerial statements. Will he clarify which it will be? There is a big difference between a couple of paragraphs in a written ministerial statement laid before the House, and a full report. When debating the other clauses, new clauses and amendments, the Government’s answer has been that they will report back to Parliament in a year’s time. I am grateful for that, but clarity would be helpful, because a full and comprehensive report would give more weight to the Opposition in terms of understanding and transparency.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do, and to expand the point, this is about understanding the performance of CQC as well. We know from the Dash report and from Mike Richards that there are, and have been, concerns about CQC performance. That is at the heart of this new clause—to try to make sure we actually look at the performance and regulation of the regulator. Those reports focus on the performance of mental health services and providers, but they do not amount to a dedicated statutory review of the regulator itself—specifically, the CQC’s role, effectiveness, and capacity under the Mental Health Act. Annual reports primarily reflect the CQC’s monitoring outcomes rather than a comprehensive, independent evaluation of whether its regulatory functions are being discharged optimally, or whether it is adequately equipped to meet the new challenges posed by the legislation. In other words, reporting on what the regulator monitors is not the same as reviewing how well the regulator performs its duties. The new clause would address that distinct gap by mandating a focused review with a parliamentary report and a Government response, thereby strengthening accountability at the regulatory level. The new clause aims to establish an additional layer of scrutiny, not duplicative reporting. It would require the Government, within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, to conduct a formal review of the CQC’s effectiveness, specifically in regulating mental health services under the 1983 Act. It mandates an assessment of whether the CQC is adequately fulfilling its duties, including monitoring, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities, as well as whether it will be capable of carrying out its duties under the new legislation. Given the well-documented problems in mental health, it seems entirely appropriate to address the key point: is the regulator regulating effectively?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not want to introduce too much bureaucracy, but ensuring an accountable statutory mechanism to ensure adequate oversight is incredibly important. Much of the debate about the Bill has been about whether we put things in primary legislation or in policy, or whether we allow policy and legislation to be done at a secondary level—or even leave them for the organisation to deal with. My concern with the CQC is that we have not seen the organisation step up in the way that it should do. That does not mean that it is not making progress, but we need to see further progress.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. I mentioned my concern about this provision on Second Reading: a rough road is not the same as a broken bridge. We are dealing here with the most severe mental health issues. The new clause talks about wellbeing, which affects everyone. Trying to report that and fit it into this criteria risks diluting the very aim of the Bill in trying to deal with the most severe mental health issues. I would be grateful for clarification on the difference between mental wellbeing, which affects everyone, and mental health issues, which not everyone has.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak in support of the new clause, which was tabled by the Conservative party. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regulatory authority’s role under the Mental Health Act 1983 within one year of the Act’s passage. Allow me to provide the current legal and regulatory context. Under the framework in the Mental Health Act 1983, the Care Quality Commission, which is the regulatory authority in England, is tasked with monitoring and regulating providers of mental health services. We have debated some of this, and there are issues still to be addressed. The CQC inspects hospitals, community mental health teams, and other relevant services to ensure compliance with statutory safeguards and standards. It publishes reports on providers and issues recommendations where it identifies failings. Additionally, there is an existing reporting framework under the Act whereby the Secretary of State is expected to oversee and ensure the Act’s proper implementation, with periodic ministerial reports to Parliament and CQC inspection outcomes made publicly available. However, there is currently no statutory requirement to review the CQC’s own role and effectiveness in carrying out these specific mental health functions. The gap means that although providers are scrutinised, the regulator itself escapes similar structured accountability and review. This question was debated in the other place and I welcome the comments from the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Merron, who, in a letter, rightly highlights existing transparency measures. She states that, “findings from CQC’s monitoring activity are reported annually in their Monitoring the Mental Health Act report, which is laid before Parliament and published publicly.” That is true. She also notes the annual quality account reports produced by NHS healthcare providers under the Health Act 2009, which cover patient safety, treatment effectiveness, and patient feedback. True. Those are indeed important components of the current oversight framework, and we support the continuation and strengthening of those transparency mechanisms.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. On this clause, I will be grateful if the Government can ensure good co-operation between the devolved powers, and if the Minister can set out how he will engage with the Welsh Government before exercising the power. On clause 57, what consideration has been given to cross-border issues to ensure that there are no unintended consequences between the likes of England and Wales or Scotland and England? Clause 58 covers commencement; will there be a clear published timetable for that over the next 10 years? Will Government allow Parliament sight of the transitional provisions? We have talked about the annual written ministerial statement, which we have clarified, but will there be further tracking reports that we can look at? Clause 59 states that the Bill will not impose new public spending or taxation, and yet the impact assessment lists £1.9 billion for the NHS in England, £396 million for local authorities, £2.5 billion for supporting housing and social care, and £287 million for legal costs and tribunals. Clearly, costs are associated with the Bill’s implementation over the next 10 years, so a money resolution is rightly required. When I raised those issues on our first and second days in Committee, the Minister rightly could not answer, because we had not had the Government’s settlement. We have now had that settlement, so I will be grateful to understand how the funding is to be applied to mental health on the community side and with regards to the Bill. Finally, given that we are dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, what are the Barnett consequentials of the Bill in ensuring the support implied in the clauses? I am grateful to the Committee, the Clerks, the Chairs, everyone here and everyone who has helped me prepare. Committee stage has been a joy, but also a long trial to get through. I am glad to be present as the Bill proceeds, because it is the right thing for the country.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Fruit and Vegetables Aid Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the closure of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme on fruit and vegetable growers.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Fruit and Vegetables Aid Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, I have Busby, the biggest strawberry and raspberry farm in Leicestershire. It uses the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which is due to run out at the end of 2025, in order to invest and innovate. The Government have been in power for one year; they wrote to me in May, saying they had “plans to simplify and rationalise agriculture grants”, but we have six months to go before the scheme ends, and Busby still does not know what its future funding will look like. What is replacing the scheme, so that Busby can carry on growing the finest strawberries and raspberries in Leicestershire?