UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Luke Evans

  • Luke Evans – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Luke Evans – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Hinckley and Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    How do you want to die? How do you picture your own death? It is a question we rarely ask ourselves, but one that every one of us will face. For me, I hope it is with peace, surrounded by loved ones, free of pain and content with a life well lived. That is the gold standard. Good palliative care strives to make that ideal a reality.

    Let me state unequivocally: we need to support palliative care. However, today’s debate is not about whether we support palliative care, but about what happens when we cannot provide a solution. What happens when palliative care does not or cannot work? The truth is that palliative care has limits. Let us consider the cases that keep doctors and surgeons awake up at night—the likes of the inoperable neck cancer, eroding away into the carotid artery. It is a literal bloody time bomb, and no one knows when it will go off. What is modern medicine’s answer to that? Keep dark towels nearby for the blood, and counsel a partner or family member on what it is like to find someone bleeding out. There is no cure, and no respite. What would you do?

    Currently, for such patients we can offer no agency over their end; no alternative to that terrifying death. Can we truly say that that is compassionate? Should we not even offer those facing such suffering at least the chance of dignity in their death? That is what the Bill stands for. To reject it on Second Reading is not just to vote against assisted dying but to silence the debate for another decade and to say that the status quo is acceptable, and it is fine for those who can afford it to fly to another country to end their suffering while others are left here without recourse. I cannot accept that. What is this House for if not to empower people, and to give them the tools to shape their lives and, yes, their deaths? Today, we have the chance to put compassion into action—to offer choice to those who are facing the ultimate suffering.

    I hugely respect Members who take a different view. I simply and gently say to them that there are consequences, too. Those intractable cases will still be there with no solution, no choice in this country and no resolution to their suffering. To those who understandably are a little unsure, I say that if they have doubts about safeguards or the implementation—I agree that some are valid—they should let the debate continue. For some Members it will a bridge too far; if necessary they should reject the Bill on Third Reading, but to stop it now is to stop the conversation entirely, take the choice off the table and remove a dying person’s agency. When all is considered, I ask again: how do you want to die?

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    Who would have thought when I went to conference four or five years ago and was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is sat next to me, that we would both be here in the Chamber having this debate, almost three years to the day since our election? Actually, it was patently obvious at that point that she was going to become an MP, because she is diligent and driven. Her introducing the Bill is testament to that.

    On reading my hon. Friend’s comments from her Westminster Hall debate last month, it was so sad to note that about 280,000 children see their parents separate. That is a hugely concerning statistic, and a figure that we need to closely reflect on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) pointed out. I am lucky and eternally grateful to have benefited from a being in a loving and stable family for nearly 40 years, but I appreciate that that experience is not universal.

    We all have CMS cases in this House, and we have often seen the anguish and the upset that the process generates. More broadly, before I came to the House, I saw in hospitals and GP surgeries the anguish that a given mental or physical issue would bring. A medical professional’s starting point is: how can I make things better? While I often could not solve the problem, I could help inform and equip people and ensure that the process ran smoothly. This Bill gives people a real chance to try and make these things better.

    I fully support this important legislation, because I believe that it sits well with the Government’s wider reforms to ensure that the work of the Child Maintenance Service is effective in preventing parents from evading their financial obligations to their children. While couples may fight and frustrate, we must keep in mind the best outcome for the children’s sake. When I was researching for the debate, I was surprised to see that more than 30 years have passed since the Thatcher’s Government critical “Children Come First” White Paper. Society has made changes since then, and methods to collect payments have certainly changed over those years. Much scrutiny and change has taken place, substantial amounts of water have passed under the bridge, and we have seen major systems redesigned.

    I note the important work of the Labour and coalition Governments to encourage and support family- based arrangements, and the fact that that work, and wider policy, have progressed with, seemingly, some decent success. Changes to the Child Maintenance Service have built on earlier reforms to ensure a fairer assessment of parents’ earnings, helping to prevent them from evading their financial obligations. These powers make a real difference in compliance by closing loopholes and strengthening enforcement.

    We must be thankful for this progress. We must never give up on the ideals, but we must balance them with the reality. According to a report from the National Audit Office published in March 2022, while the number of people making a family-based arrangement has increased as was intended, there has also been an increase in the number of people with no maintenance arrangement, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I sense that the CMS is facing a considerable workload. At the end of December 2021, it was managing more than 600,000 arrangements for 560,090 paying parents, a 9% increase in the number of arrangements since the end of June 2021.

    We must also consider those who fail to pay any amount of child support maintenance, especially when deductions from earnings are not possible. I think that enabling the DWP to make administrative liability orders is a step forward, and I also think it right that those who are subject to such orders are able to appeal. I believe I am correct in saying that they can appeal but cannot challenge the amount that has been decided by the CMS, and I think that is the right approach.

    I hope the Bill is successful, and I also hope it can be seen in the wider context of the Government’s work to ensure that the child maintenance system has the legislation and the resources to enable it to manage modern Britain. No two cases in the UK are the same, and there are nuances that play out in all our constituency surgeries. We know that these have real, far-reaching consequences, but I sense that the Bill can be a key part of a wider commitment among my ministerial colleagues to ensure that, over time, everyone pays, everyone receives the right amount, and, most importantly, the child—

    Danny Kruger

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Dr Evans

    I will.

    Danny Kruger

    It is important for my hon. Friend to experience what it is like to be on the receiving end of an intervention.

    My hon. Friend said earlier that many couples did not have an arrangement at all. What does he think we can do about not just the couples whose arrangements have broken down, but those who did not put one together in the first place?

    Dr Evans

    That is a very good question—and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for his sword-like intervention, cutting me off with one word to go before the end of my speech!

    It is important to engage with couples and ensure that they know where the resources are to enable them to have the necessary discussions, and I think that that is starting to happen as a result of signposting to, for instance, health visitors, GPs and schools, so that parents have an opportunity to speak to someone establish what their options are. Enabling them to have that dialogue is part of the work that the DWP and the Government as a whole should be doing. People need to understand fully what is available to them, and going through the court system may not be the right way for that to happen.

    I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. I hope that it makes much haste.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Supported Housing Bill

    Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Supported Housing Bill

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his speech, but I think he has done us a bit of a disservice. He spoke for 45 minutes, and I am sure he could have spoken about this topic for about three hours, given his immense knowledge. That is testament to him, and to his time and effort spent dealing with this important Bill.

    I am pleased to support the Bill, and I pay tribute to the work of Justin Bates of Landmark Chambers, and to Crisis. Crisis has a long-standing reputation as an important advocate for policies on homelessness and housing. I pay tribute to its Regulate the Rogues campaign. With Christmas fast approaching, I also wish Crisis well with their upcoming Crisis at Christmas campaign, which I know is highly regarded across the UK. I appreciate, however, that Crisis and other bodies campaign throughout the year, because homelessness and housing problems are not seasonal issues, but a matter that we must continue to work through. Many of our constituents are counting on us to make progress, and the Bill is an important addition to supporting a critical sector of housing.

    When I researched for this debate, I was troubled by comments from the important report by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee about exempt accommodation. Statements such as

    “some residents’ experiences of exempt accommodation are beyond disgraceful”

    and

    “some people’s situations actually deteriorate as a result of the shocking conditions in which they live”

    leave us wondering why we have reached a situation where some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are trying to get their lives back after a period of personal crisis, feel that their lives are getting worse in exempt accommodation, which is meant to provide them with the necessary support to get back on their feet.

    The report continues to make further worrying conclusions, such as that

    “organisations with no expertise are able to target survivors of domestic abuse and their children”

    and notes:

    “Millions of pounds are being poured into exempt housing benefit with no guarantee that vulnerable residents will get the support they need.”

    I admit to a deep sense of concern when reading a report that highlights evidence that in some cases,

    “vulnerable residents who are likely to have low incomes have to pay for support out of their own pockets.”

    We heard about that from several accounts in the Chamber today. I am left with the conclusion that in some instances there is a vicious cycle of residents on low incomes living in exempted accommodation, while paying for the questionable “benefits” of patchy support. Is patchy a strong word in certain cases? I think not.

    Some providers of such accommodation are exempt from the benefit cap and other restrictions on housing benefit, which enables them to charge the higher rents we have heard about. We cannot ignore the fact that this is public money flowing into these operations. As we have heard, exempt accommodation means accommodation that is exempt from housing benefit regulations that limit local housing allowance levels. The higher running costs associated with that type of accommodation must be considered, but I am troubled that in some cases poor-quality and even dangerous provision for vulnerable people is the return on that investment. There must be a better return for such support in these troubling cases. I am concerned that exempt accommodation can be increasingly associated with supported accommodation that is of poor quality. Considering the needs of residents who are living in such housing, we must break down the associated stigma when people raise their concerns.

    At this point in a speech, it is usual for the speaker to bring forward a mass of statistics to highlight the problems in the sector, but as we have heard countless times, that is difficult because there is no clear picture of the extent to which rogue landlords, and good operators, are operating in this sector. Advocates such as Crisis are hearing real horror stories, and we have read about them in the report and in the Chamber today. It is hard to know whether such cases are playing out in all our constituencies, in some of them, and whether some areas are worse than others. Our local councils are hearing about cases, but we may just be trying to resolve individual problems; we simply do not have the data to know. The difficulty is compounded by the different types of provider, involving multiple regulators. We must try to work out how we can tie the patchwork together.

    When I spoke to my local council in Bosworth, I was advised that there were 43 exempt accommodation properties in my borough, but there may also be private landlord arrangements that are not notified to the council. My council has rightly raised concerns about standards and regulation and, strangely enough, expressed the need for licensing and possibly for inspections, as we heard from Labour Members. I am keen to see those options explored.

    Then we need to know the definition of support, as the standard of support is also unclear. We veer wildly between good and bad stories, and there is no consistency even across a constituency. The provision should not be a lottery; it affects the lives of the residents we represent, and that is more important.

    To be fair to the Government, I sense that they recognise the issues. I was pleased that earlier this year the previous Minister with responsibility for rough sleeping and housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), announced a series of targeted measures to be introduced when parliamentary time allowed. Those measures included minimum standards of support to ensure that residents receive the good-quality support that is expected and deserved, new powers for local authorities to manage the local supported housing market, changes to housing benefit regulations to seek to define care, support and supervision and a £20 million supported housing improvement programme to drive up the quality of accommodation in the sector. However, some months have passed and, from what I have read and considered on this subject from people in the sector, I think that real progress needs to be made, so I am pleased that the Government are supporting the Bill.

    Turning to the provisions of the Bill, I welcome the introduction of the supported housing advisory panel, which will be as a useful sounding board and a way to gather evidence to support policy making in this area and, crucially, to drive progress. Nevertheless, it is important that the panel draw upon a geographical spread of voices, representing different voices and needs in the UK.

    For instance, I can imagine that the issue facing exempted accommodation providers in more rural areas such as Bosworth may be different from those we have heard about in London, or those in Leicester or Coventry. I also want to ensure that the panel draws upon expertise and innovation in the sector, so that large and small providers can come together to innovate and drive forward good practice.

    I welcome the duty for local housing authorities in England to carry out a review of supported exempt accommodation in their districts and publish a supported housing strategy, though I would be interested to understand the guidance and matrix for what the assessment should cover and how the strategy will be made up. I also want assurance that the strategy can be incorporated into any ongoing local plan process. Those documents cannot be mutually exclusive, so I would want to be sure that my local council can provide the necessary direction to ensure that its supported housing strategy really captures the needs of Hinckley and Bosworth.

    Clause 3 captures the nub of the problem, and I support the idea of clearly defined standards for this accommodation. I also note that clause 4 deals with licensing as a means of ensuring that national supported housing standards are met, and I hope for swift and effective decision making about licensing.

    We are coming up to the end of my third year in Parliament. When I look back over these most eventful of years, I am struck about how the good intentions that we have work out in this place and can make a real difference to the people that we represent. Hearing and reading baffling accounts of people with a history of substance misuse being housed with drug dealers, and of survivors of domestic abuse being housed with perpetrators of such abuse, as outlined in the Select Committee report, is very concerning.

    We must boil the argument down to the basics. In a world where there is much talk about the disposable society, the commercial society and the desire to seek short-term happiness from the most temporary of means, there are occasions when we need to think about the basics of what we need to get through life. One of those basics is a safe and secure room where you can put your head down for the night and wake up refreshed to fight the next day.

    One cannot help but be troubled by what we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other colleagues. However, there is hope, and I applaud everyone for shining an important light on this issue today. I am heartened by the will to put things right and to tackle the rogue landlords who appear to be exploiting the situation off the back of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Application Backlog

    Luke Evans – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Application Backlog

    The parliamentary question asked by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    What steps her Department is taking to tackle the asylum application backlog.

    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)

    We are clear about the fact that the asylum system needs to do better and cases need to be processed more quickly. The aim of the asylum transformation programme is to bring the system back into balance and modernise it. Its focus is on increasing productivity by streamlining and digitising processes to speed up decision making and increase efficiency and output.

    Dr Evans

    A hotel in Earl Shilton, in my constituency, has twice been identified as a way of trying to deal with the backlog, but has failed in that regard owing to health and safety concerns about fire in particular. I was therefore surprised when constituents wrote to me saying that they had seen asylum seekers in the hotel. I contacted the borough council, the county council and the police, but none of them knew anything about it, so I checked social media and found that the story had been corroborated and was true. When I contacted the Home Office, it took 72 hours for it to be confirmed that they had been placed there. This is completely unacceptable. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that it does not happen in other constituencies, and will she meet me to discuss the situation in Earl Shilton so that communication can be improved?

    Suella Braverman

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have experienced unprecedented pressure on the system recently, and responding to it has been challenging for our operational partners. We have a statutory duty to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation. We do inform local partners of our actions, but despite our ambitions to do that expeditiously, owing to the recent incredible pressure on the system we have sometimes fallen short. I understand that a direct communication has been sent to my hon. Friend, but I can say to him now that we want to improve our engagement to ensure that there is much better understanding and much better support for local communities that are affected.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Comments on Penny Mordaunt Becoming Prime Minister

    Luke Evans – 2022 Comments on Penny Mordaunt Becoming Prime Minister

    The comments made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, on Twitter on 23 October 2022.

    Nominations close tomorrow for the next Leader of the Conservative Party. To be a candidate you need to have the nominations of over 100 fellow Conservative MPs. I have nominated Penny Mordaunt to be the next Party leader.

    We’ll find out at 2pm tomorrow if Penny has made it onto the ballot paper by having enough support, and who else made it.

    As always, I will keep you posted on what happens next.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Luke Evans – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing us to sit late tonight. Bosworth has an affinity and eternal history with the monarchy. We had the battle of Bosworth in August 1485, which saw the death of Richard III and the crowning of Henry VII, so my constituency has a palpable, visible history with the monarchy, which is still there and proud today.

    We have heard over and over the description of duty. I challenge any Member in this House to find a better person in British history to personify duty. To me, she is Queen Elizabeth the Dutiful.

    As Members of Parliament, we have the honour of representing and reflecting the opinions and feelings of our constituents, and something that had never before happened, in over 1,000 years of monarchy, is the ability to feel that immediately because of social media—the chance for us to reflect the feelings of the nation. I have been struck by a poem that has been sent to me by several constituents and many councillors—I am sure that it will have graced the screens of other hon. Members, too. I would like to read it, because it is visceral and encapsulates the feelings of the nation:

    “Philip came to me today, and said, ‘It’s time to go.

    I looked at him and smiled, and I whispered, ‘Yes, I know.’

    I then turned and looked behind me, and saw I was asleep.

    All the family were around me, and then I could hear them weep.

    I gently touched each shoulder, with Philip by my side.

    Then I turned away and walked, with my angel husband as a guide.

    Philip held my hand, and he guided me on the way,

    To a world where Kings and Queens, are monarchs every day.

    I was given a crown to wear, or a halo, known by some.

    The difference is up here, they are worn by everyone.

    I felt a sense of peace, my reign had seen its end.

    70 years I had served my country, as the people’s dearest friend.

    Thank you for the years, for all your time and love.

    Now I am one of two again, in our palace up above.”

    May Her late Majesty rest in peace. Long live the King.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Future of the UK

    Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on the Future of the UK

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 16 May 2022.

    May I take this opportunity to say a great deal of thanks from my constituency to the Queen for her service over almost 70 years, as I may not get that chance going forward?

    The subject of today’s session is making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old. Two and a half years into my service as the MP for my constituency, I thought that it would be worth touching on a few things that are trying to move that plan forward.

    We have had millions of pounds for Hinckley Academy to make sure that we have education that supports our local children. We have had £19.9 million for Twycross zoo to create a conservation and education centre to breed the conservationists of the future. We have had £28 million for internet for Leicestershire, which means that 330 houses in Sketchley Brook in Burbage now have better, faster internet access. We have had £1.8 million to improve Hinckley high street and ensure that people go there and want to enjoy it, whether they are a child or an OAP. We are working on improving the A5, which is vital infrastructure for our constituency for people to get to their jobs: £20 million has been invested and we moved through decision point 1 in March. I am keen to see that go forward.

    Most importantly, £7 million has been put towards Hinckley hospital, with another community diagnostic centre coming and a plan that is ready to go. I am dead keen to make sure that there is no red tape in its way, because it puts Hinckley on the map and provides the service that we need for our community of children, adults and OAPs. That is what it is all about.

    In the three minutes that I have left, I want to focus on two subjects: planning and the Online Safety Bill. I have heard the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities use the acronym BIDEN for the five crucial points of planning: beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhoods. I put it to him that he has missed a trick there, because “INBED with Gove” would be a far better selling point. However, the principles are right: we need the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure that is right for our environment. That is fundamental to our planning system, but the current system does not deliver it. My constituency typifies that, because under the Lib Dem borough council we do not have an up-to-date local plan, which means that every single day we are open to speculative development without that infrastructure, without those amenities and without that support.

    I am pleased that the Queen’s Speech is bringing forward planning change. That should concentrate on strengthening neighbourhood plans and localism in action, especially for those without an up-to-date local plan. The infrastructure levy is important for getting funding up front for the amenities that we need: the roads, the GP surgeries, and the schools. All those things need to be rectified, so I am glad that change is being introduced. Of course, there is also the question of building out. Developers getting the land is one thing, but using it is another. We need houses for young people and their families to aspire to, but we also need houses for our pensioners to retire or downsize to, and we need to provide support for them.

    I come at the Online Safety Bill through my work on body image. There are two fundamental things that I would like to see in the Bill. First, there needs to be a legally named person for the algorithm. We have safeguarding leads in schools, we have Caldicott guardians in health and we have GDPR controllers. On our social media and on the internet, the algorithm is fundamental, so naming someone who is accountable would mean that anyone in this House or in this country could hold the big companies to account. That is imperative in lifting the bonnet to see what is underneath and what is driving the content that all of us—children or adults—are served. Secondly, we should allow people to choose to be served verified authentic images. The technology exists. We are allowing people to choose anonymity, so why do we not do it with authenticated images? Those two little changes would really make sure that we grow up and grow old in the best of Britain.

  • Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on Digitally Altered Body Images

    Luke Evans – 2022 Speech on Digitally Altered Body Images

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require advertisers, broadcasters and publishers to display a logo in cases where an image of a human body or body part has been digitally altered in its proportions; and for connected purposes.

    To set the tone for this speech, I will describe an advert put out about a year ago by Dove called “Reverse Selfie”. It starts with a young girl looking at her phone. On that phone, there is a picture of her. She may be in her late teens or early 20s. It starts to scroll backwards. She sees the comments underneath the photo of “you look amazing” suddenly disappearing, with all the likes slowly drifting away. Suddenly, the filter changes and so does her hair colour. The size of her face, including her nose, changes. Blemishes on her skin suddenly reappear.

    The process goes further. The girl puts the phone down and lies backwards and there behind her is a picture of her family that reappears on the wall—she has scrubbed it off—and a picture of her favourite teen band. Furthermore, the image shows make-up, including lipstick, coming off. Finally, what is left in front of us is a girl no older than 13 or 14. The advert finishes with a pertinent line: “The pressure of social media is hurting our girls’ self-esteem.” This is an all-too-common story happening up and down the UK to our daughters, our sons, our granddaughters and our grandsons. The advert is only a minute long but it encapsulates perfectly the problem facing our media-hungry society.

    Don’t believe me? One in five adults feel shame about their body. In teenagers, it is one in three. The Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into body image found that concerns about the way we look start younger, last longer and affect more people than ever before, with 61% of adults and 66% of children feeling “negative” or “very negative” about their body image. NHS England data released over the summer showed that there were 2,682 admissions of children under the age of 17 with a primary diagnosis of eating disorders between April 2020 and March 2021—an increase of 34% on the previous year. This issue is here, stark and getting worse. I have seen it in my own practice as a GP before being in this House, and I fear the numbers will only increase from the 1.25 million people who have suffered with eating disorders and the 1 million people in the UK using steroids, many in pursuit of achieving an image that is simply unattainable no matter what they do. The problem is palpable, prolific and pervasive.

    The growth of influencers’ collaborations and sponsored posts, particularly on social media, has added to the ever-growing list of tools advertisers have at their disposal, often featuring images that can be secretly edited. This, combined with the amount of time we spend endlessly scrolling through social media, has created a perfect storm for physical and mental health. Constantly seeing altered images warps our sense of reality and drives an aspiration that can never, ever be achieved. Even the social media companies know this, as the Facebook leaks have shown. We are setting up a generation to fail, and it is hurting us all.

    It comes as no surprise that the Women and Equalities Committee has reported on body image, the Advertising Standards Authority has opened an inquiry and a call for evidence on the issue, and the Health and Social Care Committee will, in the coming weeks, open its inquiry into body image. The UK is waking up to the issue, as have other countries across the world, with legislation in place in Israel and France and currently being brought forward in Norway. Body image is an issue that is multi-faceted and covers multiple Government Departments, with no silver bullet. We all understand that it requires a layered response from the likes of the Education Department, together with the draft online safety Bill and the assessment of risk. All these are rightly being looked at.

    My Bill is a simple stepping stone—a brick in the foundation to help tackle the problem. I am proposing a new law in Parliament that calls for commercial images featuring digitally altered bodies to be labelled with a logo where the body proportions are artificially doctored. To put it simply, if someone is being paid to post a picture on social media that they have edited, or advertisers, broadcasters or publishers are making money from an edited photograph, they should be honest and upfront about it. This is not about stopping people touching up their wedding photos or removing the red-eye on a post; it is targeted at those with significant, far-reaching influence and those with commercial intent.

    This area is already regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority and there are some similar precedents already in place. We have the “P” for product placement on TV, disclaimers on political adverts, and “Not actual video game footage” notices on adverts for video games. In more recent times, the ASA has done a significant amount of legwork on what is commercial and who the rules apply to, and the use of #ad on posts. The ASA advises:

    “In most cases, the use of #ad (or similar) is the clearest way of communicating the commercial nature of social media content. Alternatively, a platform’s own disclosure tools, such as Instagram’s Paid Partnership tool, can also help to distinguish advertising from other content…If an influencer fails to sufficiently disclose that a post is in fact marketing, then not only are they breaking the CAP Code, they—and the brand they’re working with—may well be breaking the law.”

    My proposal is simply a translation of current practice into the digital world of body image.

    Some detractors will wag their finger and say that this is the nanny state in action, but if anything it is the opposite. Those who put forward that position know full well that a perfect market needs perfect information, and this Bill is a step towards that. It does not ban changes; it simply empowers the individual to know that what they perceive is not reality, thus giving them information and, importantly, choice. However, the Bill would provide backup for the Secretary of State, should the industry not take action itself. Others argue that the evidence is not clear. They argue that logos and labels do not work and that in some cases labelling can even worsen outcomes. I would simply argue that the evidence is relatively scant and thin, as most would concede, and that the precautionary principle applies here, given the scale of the problem.

    Having my Bill in place will primarily prevent people and companies from feeling the need to doctor images in the first place. This is already evident from the many social influencers and companies that are shunning tools and filters because they see the negative connotations being perpetuated across society and see that brands are actively choosing to dissociate themselves from digital enhancement. But alas, many are still caught up in the arms race for the perfect selfie, which is why this Bill has a place.

    In closing, I find myself in a very strange position. I actually do not want to see such a logo on an image, ever. Why? Because I hope that we can foster a society that aims for body positivity without physiques that are impossible without digital manipulation. Failing that, or until then, the Government must consider primary and precautionary measures to help to curb the dramatic rise in poor mental wellbeing, the mass individual self-loathing that we have across the UK and the serious mental health disorders such as anorexia and bulimia that are becoming florid. I believe that my Digitally Altered Body Images Bill is a small but fitting way to start this journey.

  • Luke Evans – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    Luke Evans – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    The speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2021.

    I applaud the Government for their massive scale-up and huge ambition in respect of the booster programme. It truly is the way out for our nation, and I commend them for their approach. Critics will argue about whether the target of the end of this month will be reached, but we must not listen to them. Their myopic political point scoring will be forgotten in the light of the fact that the Government are doing everything they can to get jabs into arms, because that is the way out. However, I accept that further measures are necessary.

    The Government will have my support on both the mandating of face coverings and the change in isolation procedures. While masks are of course inconvenient, they are a relatively easy way of reducing the risk of not only covid, but other viruses such as flu. Let us not forget that the number of flu admissions places a huge amount of pressure on the NHS, so a reduction in both conditions—as evidenced—makes sense to me.

    Those who argue about the nuance of settings for masks often miss the point. I have heard on numerous occasions, both in the Chamber and among the public, the question, “How does the virus know whether it is in a restaurant or a shop?” Of course the virus does not know, but that is not the point. The point is this: what are the easiest measures which, when applied to the population as a whole, will reduce the risk as far as possible? The Government have to balance that at mass levels. What measures can be implemented to reduce the risk of covid, while mitigating the instant economic and non- covid damage that could occur in vulnerable sectors such as hospitality? A change in the self-isolation procedure suggests itself. This is a difficult but fair balance.

    Let me now say something about mandatory vaccinations for NHS workers. I spoke about the issue during a debate in the House on 13 July, and I am not going to rehash the entire argument; I urge anyone who wishes to look up my speech to do so. However, for me the argument still stands as it did then. It was based on the duty of care for those in positions of responsibility to the most vulnerable. That stands even more starkly today. One only undertakes that commitment in their decision to pursue this career and the precedent already exists. However, that argument must not be used as a slippery slope argument for mandatory covid vaccination for the general population. I was glad to hear the Health Secretary confirm that that would not be the case, because I do not believe that the House, or indeed most of the UK population, would accept that.

    On the topic of slippery slopes, that leads me on to the final regulation—that of the lateral flow test and the covid pass exemptions for certain venues. I am against vaccine passports. I do not believe they are practical, moral, ethical or indeed evidence-based in a scientific rationale. The closest comparison we have is Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s 70-page report does not provide the evidence for passes. To introduce such a huge change in the health management of our nation requires a full and thorough debate and I do not believe it will be done justice tonight. I am so pleased that the Government have listened and added lateral flow tests as an alternative because at least that provides a choice, but I cannot support covid passes. I worry about the slippery slope. What businesses, what society interactions, what infections might come in scope in future months or years?

    In closing, looking to the future, I said in the House on 16 June 2021 that what was most needed was a full debate on the risk that we as society are prepared to tolerate when it comes to covid for those vaccinated and for those unvaccinated who will never get vaccinated, and the trade-off between covid and non-covid health implications, health protection measures and our economy, society and liberty. I hope that the House will bring such a debate next year.

  • Luke Evans – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Luke Evans – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

    It is nice to have the chance to put on record my thanks to constituents in Bosworth and the key workers. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to the GPs, the pharmacies, indeed the police, the schools, the care homes, to congratulate them on the work they are doing, and continue to do. I am most grateful for all that they do.

    It is fair to say that the virus reaches all areas of our lives, and in turn all areas of Government, and that brings pain—pain with the loss of businesses, pain with the loss of jobs, but, most importantly, pain with the loss of lives. However, out of crisis comes opportunity, and there are some positives. I would like the Government to take those forward. I envisage that in the form of a time-limited department called the “department of virus legacy”.

    At the end of April, I wrote to the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister, because I think it is so important, as we have heard in these debates, to encapsulate and draw on all the positive aspects that have come out of this crisis. We have had a revolution overnight, rather than the usual evolution. In my sector as a GP, literally overnight everyone has begun teleconferencing. That is something that the industry has tried to do for over a decade, and has not been able to achieve—and just like that, it has happened.

    Pharmacies are now all digital, with electronic prescribing. In my role on the Health and Social Care Committee, I asked all the witnesses we have had what positive aspects had come out of this. Those in cancer care talked about how they were able to bring 10 teams into one hospital to deal with a patient, and maternity talked about the fact that they have actually had more contact because they can do remote teleconferencing. It is the same with mental health. There are positives out there, and that is just in the sector that I come from.​

    More widely, we have looked at remote working. We have looked at the societal benefits of now knowing your neighbour, caring for your neighbour and caring for your community. These are absolutely critical things, which we need to embed into our society. To do that, I urge the Government to consider establishing such a department.

    Legacy planning, as we found in the Olympics, is absolutely critical. Now more than ever we have the time-limited opportunity to enshrine, post virus, the positive changes in the fabric of our policies and, in turn, our Government and society. To the Minister listening I say, “I hope you will take this on board when you hold discussions with the rest of Government.”