Department of Health and Social Care

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

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.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Given that there are so many unanswered questions and such little information, rather than estimates day, wouldn’t the better name for this debate be “a complete stab in the dark” day?

[Dr Evans]

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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Very quickly, shadow Minister. Ten seconds.

[Dr Evans]

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I will try to answer all the questions that have been put to me in the short time I have. First, I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. Members, and I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for securing this debate.

The UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement is an important step forward for patient access to innovation and the future of our life sciences sector. This arrangement is fundamentally about patients by ensuring that they can benefit from life-changing medicines as they are developed, rather than see the UK being left behind. We have already seen the benefit from those changes, with NICE approving life-changing treatments such as vorasidenib, a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12.

The UK’s life sciences sector is one of our greatest national strengths. It saves lives, supports jobs and underpins innovation across our economy. I am proud that thanks to this arrangement, the United Kingdom will be the only country in the world to have secured a commitment to tariff-free access for pharmaceutical exports into the United States.

The Chair of the Committee raised NICE and VPAG changes and rebates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also raised a number of issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will address them now.

The joint Government and industry taskforce has been discussing the options for continuing to evolve our system to ensure that we maximise benefits to patients and the economy. It will make recommendations on pilot programmes as per the UK-US arrangement commitment, and I look forward to providing an update to the Committee on that in due course.

I know there has been concern that these changes undermine NICE’s independence, but that is not the case—let me just be clear about that. NICE will continue to make its recommendations based on evidence, clinical effectiveness and value for money, free from political interference. The change will allow Ministers to set the overall threshold within which NICE operates, not to determine individual decisions. This will preserve NICE’s core role as an independent evaluator, while ensuring that the framework that it uses reflects how we value innovation and patient benefit.

Concerns were also raised about the fact that the UK commitments are larger than the US commitments, but I do not agree. The UK has made policy changes to improve access for patients, while the US has committed to tariff protection for UK exports, which is significant given the scale of that market. The commitments deliver improved patient access in the UK and protection for UK exports.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am trying to get through all these questions as quickly as I can. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

On the VPAG changes and rebates, alongside changes to NICE recommendations, the arrangement affects how pricing and repayment mechanisms operate through the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth. To ensure predictability for the industry going forwards, given the unexpectedly high payment percentage for newer medicines for 2025, the Government have committed to ensuring that future VPAG rates do not exceed 15%. This will support life sciences investment and patient access to medicines while ensuring that the scheme can continue to work for both industry and the NHS, keeping the medicines budget sustainable. I look forward to engaging with the sector on the future of the voluntary scheme, with negotiations due to begin next year informed by the outcomes or interim findings from pilot programmes that were launched as early as this September.

[Dr Evans]

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?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

With respect, I am going to answer the questions that have been put to me by many hon. Members, and I am coming to the impact assessment.

We have been clear that the estimated short-term impact is around £1 billion in England over the spending review period. Costs will increase over time as NICE approves more medicines, but precise long-term costs cannot be modelled as a single figure; they depend on future medicines, NICE approvals, uptake and wider commercial developments.

Members mentioned a number of figures. I do not recognise the £9 billion and £14 billion figures for costs. Spending on innovative medicines increases year on year as new treatments become available, so underlining growth would be expected to continue regardless of this arrangement, and often the figures cited publicly do not take that into account. We are committed to increasing spending on medicines as a proportion of NHS spend, ending the recent decline in the proportion of health spend dedicated to medicines and increasing spending on innovative medicines to 0.6% of GDP.

The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) raised a really important point. Life sciences is one of our most productive sectors. It underpins research and development, clinical trials and high-value manufacturing, and it supports jobs across the country. Over £1 billion in industry investment has already been secured since the announcement of this arrangement in December last year. That includes AstraZeneca’s recent announcement of a £300 million investment into R&D sites at Cambridge and Macclesfield. That demonstrates the confidence that this key sector has in the UK. Maintaining a strong commercial environment helps ensure continued investment and the development of new treatments. This is not separate from patient benefit. It enables the pipeline of the new medicines that NHS patients ultimately rely on.