Chris Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the premier league has a responsibility to share its wealth. It is interesting that this is the second year running that the promoted clubs have gone straight back down, and the gap between West Ham and Ipswich is huge. There is no way that they were going to breach that with four games left in the season. There are issues we have to look at on that. Turning to the Bill, even though I broadly support it, that does not mean that I do not have reservations, and I hope the Minister will bring some comfort on those. The new legislation includes a licensing regime requiring clubs to satisfy the independent football regulator that they have sound corporate and financial governance in place that provides financial stability. Licensing concerns me. The fact is that the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal—whoever we want to name in that traditional top six bracket—will have people in place who can bring about a licensing regime and they will be able to comply with it. That is not the case for a smaller club, and it could put unnecessary burdens on them. That therefore needs to be addressed in the Bill, and I hope the Government will bring that about.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me early, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the London marathon yesterday and do not think I could bob up and down all evening. I respect the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and count him as a friend, but his speech was hysterical at points. He claimed again that UEFA will ban English teams from competition as a result of perceived Government interference—he knows that is wrong. The fact is that UEFA would have made a statement by now, and it has not done so. It did not oppose mirrored legislation in Spain or Italy. It is not going to happen; it is not going to ban English clubs from European competitions. It is a fallacy to say that, and I am embarrassed that he has been forced to come here by his party leader and move an amendment against a Bill introduced and endorsed by the Conservatives. It means the Conservatives lose credibility and we cannot bring in a Bill that we can all unite behind, as we did in the previous Parliament. I must declare an interest as the author of that great book, “Don Revie: The Biography”. I discovered in the research for that book how much football has come on. In the days when Don Revie won the league championship in 1969 and 1974—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) nodding away—and the FA cup in 1972, football was not a place to take families. People did not want to be in town on a Saturday morning, because fans were rampaging through cities and towns throughout our country. People did not want to go to stadiums, which were often crumbling. There was hooliganism, violence, vandalism and countless examples of clubs being banned. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Daventry saying—sorry, I am not singling him out—that he believes passionately in football. It is pity that the Conservative Government of the 1980s did not believe that. They believed that the solution to hooliganism was to pen in our fans with electrified fences, and we have seen the tragic results of that. That is what Mrs Thatcher believed, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, I would ask him to read Dominic Sandbrook on what Margaret Thatcher believed about football. She did not like the game, like many other people on the Opposition side. Football turned the corner only in the 1990s, and it is ironic that the Premier League is endorsing the Bill’s prevention of breakaway league forming in the future given that it is itself a breakaway league, it having broken away from the EFL in 1992. It is a British success story. The premier league has become the most watched game across the world, with 1.5 billion fans in 189 countries. The global success story begins at home: it generates £8 billion annually in UK gross value added, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs. This is a success story.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, Peter Ridsdale’s name is blackened in Leeds. It is also blackened in Arsenal, Barnsley and wherever he has been. Leeds is an important point. We talk about the glory days of Don Revie. We forget about the early 2000s, when we were overspending on certain players. There were massive wages where players had been sold and wages were still being paid. It was ultimately trying to bring success to the club, but it failed, and when it started failing there were no safeguards in place, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe and hope—the eternal optimist—that we both will be celebrating a top-four finish next season and will be back in the champions league for the first time since the 2000s. The huge issue I have with this Bill, though—again, this is a framework piece of legislation—is that when the independent football regulator comes about, they will have to set out their rules and guidance. That will likely run to hundreds of pages and will take time, so the Government must make regulations specify which leagues will follow the legislation initially. They also need to bring about a timetable to ensure that when that framework legislation is written out, it is done in a way that does not affect clubs’ futures. The fact is that a lot of clubs with small budgets have to plan for the future, so I hope that a strict timetable is put in place for governance and other issues that clubs must meet. I turn to my concerns about the Bill. I have already talked about UEFA and the scaremongering from the Conservatives about English clubs somehow being banned from Europe, and I hope I have addressed that. The second concern is that the owners’ test might require some current owners to sell their clubs, although again that is scaremongering from the Conservatives. That is unlikely, though there is a possibility of some impact on the ownership of clubs in the next few years. The new test in the Bill develops the tests already applied by the Premier League and the EFL to date, and the most significant changes are likely to emerge in the long term as we see more in the guidance and overall approach from the IFR to how it applies to the test in practice. It is also important to bear in mind that the Bill is focused on the application of the test to new owners purchasing a club, rather than owners already in place, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on earlier. However, it is possible that some current owners may find themselves subject to the IFR applying the test if new information raising concerns about their suitability comes to light in future. I hope that amendments will be made in Committee to address that. I broadly support the Bill, but I want to return to something that needs to be addressed, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Throughout writing the Don Revie book, I was heavily involved with the players and met Johnny Giles, who is probably the greatest midfielder to come out of Ireland—sorry, Roy Keane. I met his son Michael and his cousin John Stiles, who is the son of Nobby Stiles, who was a 1966 World cup winner. Unfortunately, Nobby—like so many other professionals and many of that World cup winning side—succumbed to dementia and Alzheimer’s. They formed the Football Families for Justice, a voluntary organisation that campaigns on behalf of ex-professional footballers who have died because of neurodegenerative diseases incurred in the course of their work. Footballers suffer neurodegenerative diseases at four to five times the national average. It is something that needs to be investigated. Alzheimer’s and CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—which is usually suffered by boxers from blows to the head, is five times the national average for footballers. Motor neurone disease, which claimed the life of my hero Don Revie, is four times the national average, and Parkinson’s is twice the national average. That needs to be investigated. This is the goal of the FFJ: “We call on the leaders of the football industry to act with urgency in allocating a small proportion of their massive wealth to address the tragedy of dementia and other neuro-degenerative diseases suffered by so many ex-professionals” and “to meet the needs of these victims with respect and kindness through best-in-class support, including care home costs and financial assistance for their widows, as required.” When the football regulator comes about, I hope that research into medical conditions is part of its remit, to support people who have given so many others so much pleasure over the years. I also hope that the football regulator will investigate not just the leagues but the Professional Footballers’ Association and the way it is run as a trade union. There are serious concerns about the pay of the chief executive and the way in which that so-called union is being run. I hope that that will be part of the football regulator’s remit. I hope that there is something we can do to ensure that the tragedies suffered by Nobby Stiles, Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton—legends whose names trip off the tongue—are not suffered by their successors, such as Harry Kane. As I said, in the main, I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have decided to take a crazy decision, even though the Bill is almost identical to theirs. I believe that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Daventry, supports the Bill in his heart, but that other forces—mainly the leader of the Conservative party—have probably changed his mind somewhat.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  7. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on improving public services.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  When the Secretary of State has his discussions with the Executive, will he look to the example of Wales and its social partnership model? Government, public sector workers and unions are working collaboratively and are in positive discussions to bring about real change and harmony in the delivery of public services.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Turner. It seems funny to call you Mr Turner—we have been friends for so long—but I congratulate you on your elevation to the Panel of Chairs. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this very important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I add my condolences to Jack’s family, who are in the Public Gallery. I come from a bookmaking family: my parents were bookmakers and my grandparents were bookmakers. I have always defended the industry, because I have always believed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), in the horseracing levy—as someone who loves horses, I have always been attracted by the investment in equine science—but there comes a point when we cannot defend the indefensible any more. We have gone too far. I bought the newspaper on Sunday. My son, like millions of boys and girls across the country, loves Erling Haaland. There was a picture of him on the front page of the paper, and next to it was advertised a free £3 bet. I do not want my son’s love of football linked to betting. I should declare an interest as administrative steward for the British Boxing Board of Control. Gambling is no longer just gambling; it is embedded in the sports programmes that we see everywhere. When I drive home from London, I like to listen to the match on talkSPORT, and it cuts over to a betting expert to tell people the latest odds. At the end of each round of a boxing match, they improve the odds on what they are doing. When I was in the betting shop, there was a limit on football betting. No one could bet on singles, doubles and trebles, only an accumulator. It was not possible to bet in game as can be done now. I do not believe the Labour Government brought about the Gambling Act 2005 envisaging smartphones. That legislation did not envisage the examples we have talked about today—but they need to stop. I see nothing wrong with betting shops being open the way they are—they were once sleazy places, but they do support the industry—but I believe we have gone too far with advertising. Gambling has taken the space of tobacco companies. Mr Turner, you are more or less my age; you will remember the Embassy darts championship and the Embassy snooker championship. You will remember the John Player Special Formula 1 cars on a Sunday afternoon. The livery of the McLaren cars was the same as a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. When we see Stake going round the circuit, it is the same thing. I really think we need a regulator with real teeth that can shut these companies down, and a change in the law. I hope that when the Minister stands up, he will talk—

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  I have in front of me a press release from Entain, which announces that Liverpool has become Ladbrokes’ official betting partner. It says: “The partnership will provide Ladbrokes with a range of exclusive content opportunities and activations to reward and entertain customers and fans”. What does the hon. Member think those rewards and entertainment will be?

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on his eloquent and passionate speech although, as he would expect, I do not agree with much of what he said. I am pleased to follow the man whom YouGov called the 31st most famous person in Britain in 2024. I am sure that in 2025 he will be looking to move up the charts as quickly as possible. When I have thought about what has happened over the past couple of days, my mind has often drifted back to a very wet holiday in Cornwall a couple of years ago, when I read “The Art of the Deal”. If anybody wants to see President Trump’s thinking, they just need to read that book. He says that the worst thing a person can do when he wants to make a deal is to look too desperate, and the most important thing, he says, is to have leverage in that deal. There has been a lot of talk since November about how we want to be friends with President Trump, and a lot of people have taken back what they have said about him, but the truth is that we have to look at the deal and the leverage that we have. We will always be strategically important to the US. Our relationship has deep roots in defence, security and intelligence, and our armed forces have always fought alongside each other. The United States can access UK intelligence networks in states where it lacks its own. It gets to work through British counterparts in the Commonwealth and many places where we hold more significant historical ties. The UK also gets a good deal; we have great bilateral intelligence-sharing agreements, and UK diplomats in the US have a particularly strong relationship with key policymakers. My worry going into this debate was that we would make this about personality, and we would start talking about the personality of Donald Trump or the Prime Minister. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go. In four years’ time, Donald Trump will not be President any more—the US constitution says so. For too long, when we have talked about the special relationship, we have reduced it down to personality. That may go back to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but let us not forget that they fell out over the Falklands when Reagan tried to intervene. Whether we support Trump or not, and whatever we think of him personally, the fact is that we have to be a critical friend. We cannot blindly obey or expect obedience from each other; that is not how it works. I recall many years ago, when I was working for Lord Touhig, he gave a speech on the UK-US involvement in Iraq. He said then: “True friends tell each other the truth, no matter how difficult and painful that might be from time to time. It is up to this Government to be honest and plain-speaking with our American friends.” —[ Official Report , 22 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 570.] He said that the relationship “must be a true partnership, in which we do not always hitch our wagon to America’s star on foreign and defence policy.” —[ Official Report , 22 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 568.] This has been done before. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson desperately wanted this country to get involved in the debacle of Vietnam. The national security adviser McGeorge Bundy advised the President: “We want to make very sure that the British get it into their heads that it makes no sense for us to rescue the pound while there is no British flag in Vietnam.” Wilson offered Johnson other reassurances—generally those that aligned with his own view on the right course of action, including that British bases at Suez would be maintained—but he did not give in on the matter of Vietnam. I have to say with all candour that I wish we had had the same attitude in the early 2000s when we were approaching the situation in Afghanistan. Deals will have to be made with America, but we have to remember that whether it be President Trump, Biden or Kennedy, the American President is elected with one aim in mind: to make sure that he gets the best deal for America. Otherwise, what is the point in electing him? It is the same for us in this country. We expect the British Prime Minister to get the best possible deal, but, in an uncertain time, that does not mean that we forgo our principles. We do not have to be selective in our battles. We can make our views clear and remain strong, but our priority must always be this country and putting our priorities first. That is the only way we can continue to make this relationship special.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this timely debate. I also welcome—quite belatedly—the Minister to her place. She has an extremely tough job, as was underlined by Sir Jeremy Quin, the former right hon. Member for Horsham, who had her role in the last Conservative Administration, when he said: “Defence procurement is never easy—it is a tough thing to get right—and I have not yet found a state anywhere on earth that can really deliver to the kind of standards that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to see.” —[ Official Report , 18 July 2022; Vol. 684, c. 718.] That is further underlined by the latest figures from the MOD about Government projects, which were set out in the portfolio in March 2024. That document said that 88 projects are on red, 18 are on amber and only one is on green. Behind those figures is a supply chain that will also be affected. Many firms in that supply chain will be small and medium-sized businesses that do not have large bid-writing or tendering teams. Under the Procurement Act 2023, if all goes according to plan, SMEs will spend less time bidding for contracts that they do not win and many of the tick-box exercises will be reserved for the company that is offered the work. During my time in opposition, I was often told that the MOD has a tendency to change its mind at short notice. The best example of this, which I am sure the Minister has sleepless nights about, is the Ajax programme; it wasted £5.5 billion, including in my former constituency. It is important to strike the right balance between removing unnecessary red tape and ensuring that contractors can prove that they are up to the job. When I was in opposition, the most important thing that I learned when speaking to SMEs was about late payments. In all the time that I shadowed the role of the Minister for Defence Procurement, I got angry only once, when a prime contractor stood in front of me and said, “Now we’ve finally been paid by the MOD, we can pay the supply chain”—18 months later. The businesses involved in the supply chain are not large—very often, they consist of just five or six people being innovative—yet they lose out because prime contractors put the needs of other people above their needs. Of course, there will always be examples of good practice, but one major defence contractor operating here in the UK was, at the last count, taking an average of 101 days to pay its supply chain. Would any of us accept a three or four-month wait to get paid? In 2020, multiple major defence firms were suspended from the prompt payment code for consistently failing to pay their suppliers on time. SMEs across all sectors spend a total of 50 million hours a year chasing payments. If the Government mean what they say about promoting productivity and growth in defence SMEs, addressing late payment must surely be a priority going forward. Voluntary codes are all very well, but they are just that—voluntary. If we are serious about this issue, we must enshrine redress in legislation. It is unacceptable to pay our SMEs—the lifeblood of our economy—late, and there should be penalties for that. Late payments create cash-flow problems, which in turn affect SMEs’ access to finance. That cannot go on.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Defence Programmes Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). I well remember one of her very early speeches when we both came to this place, in which she gave a lecture to this House about the benefits of the Laffer curve. Having also listened to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I am pleased to report that although Milton Friedman, Keith Joseph and Mrs Thatcher may be long gone, their ideas will live on as long as those two Members sit on the Conservative Benches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for a great speech standing up for her farmers in her rural constituency. I think she faces, as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the same problems that we face in Wales. We in Wales are too heavily dependent on the public sector and there is a lack of entrepreneurship, which are similar problems to those faced in Northern Ireland, but I can think of no greater champion to stand up for Northern Ireland than my hon. Friend. Things have changed since the last time I spoke in this House. I was the Member for Islwyn, and I am now the Member for Caerphilly. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House will indulge me for a moment, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly, Wayne David, who was a doughty champion for his constituency. He absolutely loved this place, and he was one of our great Welsh parliamentarians. I am sure Wayne David would join me in welcoming today the first speech by a Labour Chancellor for 14 years, and the very first by a female Labour Chancellor at that. For those of us who came in in 2010, it was a long haul in opposition, and I am delighted to be standing here today on the Government Benches. “Britain has lived for too long on borrowed time, borrowed money, borrowed ideas. We live in too troubled a world to be able to promise that in a matter of months, or even in a couple of years, that we shall enter the promised land. The route is long and hard.” Those words were spoken by Prime Minister James Callaghan at the Labour party conference in Blackpool almost 50 years ago, in 1976. His analysis laid the blame for Britain’s problems at the door of high Government debt, high taxation and low productivity. The economic ills we suffer today have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks or months, but they must go away. Great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the political gain of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee moving towards tremendous social, cultural, political and economic upheavals. We face handing over a toxic legacy to our children and our children’s children. That is how serious the current crisis we face is. Our challenge, in this place in this time, is breaking the cycles that mean those words of Callaghan still reflect acutely on the situation we face today. We need to get away from two myths that are peddled about the British economy. First, there are those who believe that sweeping tax cuts will, as we have heard from Opposition Members, turbocharge the economy without any adverse effect on public services. They cite the 1980s as a global age, but taxes could be cut when the Government were able to rely on North sea oil money and the privatisation of industries. In 2024, that is not an option. A tax cut would only come at the price of cutting public services. It is a lesson we should have learned from the infamous fiscal event of September 2022. The experience of most people we speak to, whether they are trying to book a medical appointment or simply renew a passport, is poor. That position is intolerable. The second myth is that, if we chuck enough money at a problem, somehow that will solve it. As someone who served on the Public Accounts Committee for five years under my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is now the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, I find that a laughable idea. Take the Ajax programme, which was meant to provide a new armoured vehicle for our Army. It was initially meant to be delivered in 2017, but it is now 2024, and it is still not complete. Meanwhile, north of £3 billion of public money has been wasted. Both soldiers and the public purse have suffered the consequences of a wasteful mess that created unsuitable, unsafe and largely unusable vehicles. The National Audit Office called it “flawed from the start”, and noted that it was suffering from problems that plague other defence programmes. The programme is even yet to be delivered, and it faces the threat of being obsolete, despite the mammoth cost to the taxpayer. We cannot allow a system in which regular mistakes are the norm, and are simply part of the culture. We cannot have civil servants shrugging their shoulders and saying, “That’s the way it is.” They are spending public money. An estimated £7.3 billion was lost to fraud related to covid-19 schemes from 2020 to 2022, according to the National Audit Office. Some £2.9 billion was spent on personal protective equipment that was deemed unusable for frontline services. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement about the covid corruption commissioner, but the fraud should not have happened in the first place. Most recently, hundreds of millions of pounds went down the drain for the failed Rwanda scheme. Whatever we think about such schemes, what message does that give to those who are working hard to pay into the system every month, and who are asked for more and more of their hard-earned money in taxes? Ronald Reagan—yes, I am quoting somebody from the right wing—once said: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” I believe that bad government is the real problem. The Government cannot do everything, but they can do some things well—the rise in the minimum wage announced today is one such example. However, we cannot go on this way; there is no future in giving Departments more and more money if it is only going to be wasted. If there is a black hole in a Department’s budget, the system created that, and more money will not change wasteful practices. There needs to be fundamental reform in the way we manage major projects. The Chancellor announced some productive measures today, but if we do not stop money leaking out of Government through wastefulness and mistakes, we are failing the taxpayer. We must be strict with ourselves when it comes to projects and Government spending. We need the chair of the Office for Value for Money, announced in July, to report annually to the House. They must be tasked with several questions about each project: is it on time, and is it delivering value for money? If not, if necessary we have to be ruthless. We either take the decision to carry on with projects that are doomed to lose money, or we take a step back—do less but do it better, and start creating more things that we can export abroad. As the Chancellor recognised in her speech, we cannot borrow indefinitely, and we cannot keep asking hard-working people for more and more, while Governments make costly errors and ask the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Investment to rebuild is necessary, and the Government are right to protect the most vulnerable from shouldering an increased burden. However, it is time for a root and branch reform of the civil service, with a realistic economic policy that considers the state of the public finances as they are, not as we wish or hope they were. I am hopeful that the Budget has done that today. If we do not act now, in 50 years’ time will future generations be speaking of the same ailments? If they are, it means simply that we have failed and have effected no real change in our time in this place. Callaghan raised these problems 50 years ago. It is our duty to ensure that we do not spend another 50 years stuck in that same place.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Global Combat Air Programme · Hansard source

  More

  GCAP will contribute £37 billion to the economy, but the Minister will know that the SDR being under review has led to a number of stories appearing in the press that the programme is about to cancelled. As someone who once represented General Dynamics, which built Ajax, I know that a belief that something will not happen tends to cause problems within the local and national economies. As the SDR goes ahead, will the Minister ensure that this House and the press will be kept up to date on how GCAP is developing?