Chris Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The two groups in society most affected by poverty are the young and the old. I think that that speaks to Labour party values. Harold Wilson once said that our party and our movement is “a moral crusade or it is nothing.” That is what separates us from the Opposition parties. The simple fact is that I do not buy the Liberal Democrats’ reinvention as the cuddly leaders of social mobility, especially when their leader sat in the coalition Government that oversaw austerity. Equally, I do not believe that the Tories yet understand what they did to the economy, and in particular to the people they plunged into poverty. That is the real legacy of the Tory Government. I think the important thing is that we are supporting young people. It is amazing today that we are allowed to say that 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. That is an achievement in itself, but we are also with them on their journey. We are ensuring a youth placement for the long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 21, and ensuring that small businesses can give them apprenticeships. Those are important achievements. Furthermore, it is amazing that we have been able to raise the state pension limit for so many pensioners, who for so long froze under the Tory Government and had to make a choice between heating and eating. We are not talking about these things in the abstract; they are actually happening in constituencies such as mine. However, I think this is our proudest achievement, and the one thing the Chancellor should be remembered for. Last September, I chaired a meeting in Caerphilly of all the pensioners affected by the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and I wrote to the Chancellor to ask for the £2.3 billion in its investment fund to be transferred to them immediately. I am proud to be standing here today while a Labour Government are bringing about that legacy—for these people worked underground and kept the country moving; they knew intolerable suffering from the industrial diseases they had after they finished work. These are the people who made Britain great, and we should honour them. We have heard all sorts of blame today for the problems we have, but it comes down to one thing: for 40 years, we have been in the grip of a failed economic theory, and we see it still today. We hear all the time that we can cut taxes and keep public services at the same level or improve them, and that there are no consequences of that, but there is only one outcome: more borrowing. That went on under previous Governments over and over again, but eventually we have to pay the piper. [ Interruption. ] I hear Opposition Members chuntering from a sedentary position, so I give way.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the group he mentioned. Anything that can be done to reduce the stigma of suicide must be done. We must realise how important this is. One family losing one life to suicide is one family too many. It is time to end the silly stigma about “real men” being this, that or the other. Real men talk about their feelings. We are human and we have got to get away from this stigma. As my hon. Friend mentioned, groups are incredibly important but they cannot bear the sole responsibility for starting the conversation and providing support. Government must provide more education, support and treatment for mental health. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about health awareness campaigns, which are vital. There are posters of Davina McCall referring to breast cancer to ensure that it is diagnosed earlier than ever. We should take the same approach to suicide. Suicide is the joint highest killer, alongside accidental poisoning, of men under 50 in Wales. It is ironic that there is so little conversation about such a big killer. That must change and can start with local groups, but should be led by the Government. If the mental health strategy launched today is to work, it must not only address men’s health issues, which have long been ignored, but seek to undo the deep stereotypes that impact men’s likeliness to reach out for help. Undoing those stereotypes will make it more acceptable for men to receive support in any area of their lives, proving that their struggles can be addressed. There is no stigma or embarrassment in that, only strength. The impact that Government action can have on the stigma surrounding men’s mental health and suicide must not be overlooked. Healthcare systems must better hear and respond to the epidemic of male suicide. I hope the Welsh Government introduce a similar strategy to address those problems. At a meeting I had with the Men and Boys Coalition charity last week, it revealed the necessity for a men’s health strategy in Wales. I want to echo that message. My constituency has the seventh highest suicide rate in Wales. Figures like that prove the necessity and urgency of a mental health strategy. I know the Minister well and we are friends. As a fellow Welsh MP, I hope he can use his influence to ensure that the Senedd adopts the strategy we have launched today in England. More importantly, I call for the rhetoric around male suicide to change: compassion, understanding and kindness must be at the heart of whatever we do next. We must use the lessons we have learned from the deaths of others. The solution may involve some uncomfortable, unfamiliar and new conversations, but those conversations could save someone’s life. I want to end by talking about Ricky Hatton. He fought battles in the ring and fought wars, but the one battle he could not face, against himself, he lost. Let us hope that there are fewer people who feel like that. I urge the Government to take action.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, the Minister represents a rugby stronghold and he will know of instances of ex-sports players committing suicide. We have already spoken about some high-profile cases, including Gary Speed and Ricky Hatton, but there are others who stop playing at lower levels and then develop feelings of isolation and lack of identity. When the Minister speaks to the Premier League and other sporting institutions, will he ensure that ex-sportsmen have the necessary support once they retire from the game?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on International Men’s Day. I also pay tribute to her constituent, Philip Pirie; no one can imagine the loss of a child, and it is a testament to him that in the pits of his despair, he has reached out to others. If ever I am asked when someone is struggling, I always say, “Just talk—help is available.” That would be my attitude today. If someone needs support, they should reach out and find it. Just six months ago, I might not have chosen to speak in this debate at all. Then, in the summer, two events taught me a harsh lesson; they made me realise that reaching out and receiving support is not so easy and, in many cases, not done. On 13 August, I was driving to work on a normal day. I had been away for a long weekend with the family and had just dropped my kids at the sports camp. I was trying to work out what time I had to leave work to pick them up. As I said, it was an ordinary day. Then the phone rang and everything changed. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was then a Government Whip, telling me that Hefin David, MS for Caerphilly, had died suddenly. To talk about Hefin in the past tense is surreal. He was someone so full of life—so passionate, so dedicated to his job and to the people of Caerphilly. He had a wide circle of friends. He was someone who knew help was available and would have told anyone else that, but now he was gone. I think back to our last conversation in July and how normal it was: I was going to Greece and he was going to Benidorm. We both talked about how much we were looking forward to the break. We ended the conversation by saying we would speak when we were back. Surely, I thought, the news that he was gone was not true. But that is the grim reality that all his family and those who loved him have to face on a day-to-day basis. Then, a month later, on 14 September, while I was settling down for Sunday lunch, a news alert flashed up on my phone telling me and the world that Ricky Hatton, the beloved Manchester boxer and world champion, had been found dead. I had only met Ricky on a few occasions at boxing events, but I was always struck by how polite and down to earth he was—a man who dedicated his post-boxing career to men’s mental health and talked candidly about his suicidal thoughts. He brought joy and excitement to so many people and had seemingly put his problems behind him, but he was found alone at home. In different ways, both Hefin and Ricky were warriors. One fought passionately in the Senedd for those on the margins of society, and one demonstrated untold bravery in the ring. In the end, outside appearances can, and often do, mask the struggles that men face. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. With the rate of male suicide in Wales having risen by 56% in the last 40 years, it has become the joint highest killer of men under 50, with those aged 45 to 49 facing the highest risk. At that stage of life, men are burdened with societal expectations that mandate how they should think and behave. Those expectations are passed down from generation to generation, derived from traditional notions of masculinity that promote strength, self-reliance and emotional restraint. Acknowledging poor mental health can feel like a confession and lies at odds with this supposed ideal. Rather than being seen as a sign of humanity, it is viewed as a weakness or failure to live up to what a man should be, as opposed to men being seen for what they are: simply human beings. Men are just as likely to experience emotional difficulty in life as anyone else, so why are they expected not to talk about it? As a result, many men are reluctant to seek help and tend to downplay symptoms for fear of appearing weak or vulnerable. It is important to acknowledge that there are people in society doing important work to address this problem, undo stigma and, more importantly, start a conversation. The Jolly Brew Crew in my constituency is a free men’s mental health group focusing on peer support, reducing stigma and having more meaningful conversations. It provides a place for men of all ages to go, speak openly about their problems and feel supported. It has fostered a sense of community, combating social isolation and loneliness, proving that problems can be solved.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seeker Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of the leader of Plaid Cymru in paying tribute to Hefin David, my friend and colleague. He was an amazing representative for Wales and a real warrior for those who are neurodivergent or find themselves on the margins of society. I am delighted that Caerphilly is so popular today. It seems that so many people who have either only visited several times, or not visited at all and have only read about it in the press, have become experts about my constituency. I am also pleased that the Minister has raised the plight of Ukrainians who came to Wales to seek sanctuary, running from war, because if there was one downside to the by-election, it was the talk of asylum seekers being bad people—that they are all illegal and that they do not contribute anything. Those who said such things should see the exhibition that was on at Caerphilly council and see what asylum seekers have contributed. What message does the Minister have for those Ukrainians who are still seeking asylum in Wales?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by declaring an interest: I am the biographer of Don Revie, the former Leeds and England manager, and the author of “The Football Battalions” about the footballers who went to war. I echo the tribute from the Front Bench to Diogo Jota, whose life was lost last week. He lit up the premier league for both Liverpool and Wolves, and we realise how short life is when we think about how he celebrated his wedding just 11 days earlier and about the three children he leaves behind. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for doing so well when he was the right hon. Member for Pudsey in constructing the Bill when in government. It is a shame that he does not agree with his former self. The Bill was born out of the fan-led review, but when we talk about a Football Governance Bill, footballers need to be at the heart of it. It is players who quicken the pulse and it is they who provide the memories that we cherish forever, from childhood right through to now—the memories that we pass on to our children. I therefore speak in favour of new clause 13, which I have tabled, relating to a neurodegenerative care scheme and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Just as fans are to be at the heart of the review, the game would be nothing without the players. I broadly support the Bill, but it can be made better, and if it can be made better, we should do that. The discourse surrounding the Bill is often about the independent football regulator being a safeguard for both fans and clubs, but it should also be a safeguard for ex-players and their families if neurological conditions or illnesses are most likely caused by their career in football. Unfortunately, the Bill neglects ex-players and families who are affected by conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. They must be supported through the creation of the independent football regulator. It is evident that the effects of a career in football are long-lasting. Footballers are four to five times more likely to die from neurodegenerative conditions, often the result of persistently heading the ball. The independent football regulator must supervise and establish a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care. Players and their families dedicate themselves to the game and its dangers, and it is only fair that they are looked after in return. It should not be only their burden to bear, especially after contributing so much to our society. As has already been said, football generates £8 billion annually, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend not think it is a bit rich of the Opposition, given the problems they had in the 1980s when they did not stamp out hooliganism and instead thought that the way forward was to pen fans in behind electrified fences and even to introduce ID cards, to claim that they are now standing up for football fans?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her support. What brought this home to me about how much players were earning was when Johnny Giles, the great Leeds midfielder of the 1960s and ’70s, showed me his first contract from when he was playing for Manchester United: £18 in the winter and £12 in the summer. That sums up how much they were paid. A point that came up at that important meeting, which was attended by luminaries including Kevin Keegan, Chris Sutton, Paul Walsh and Barry Fry, was the complaints about the Professional Footballers Association. When I raised this on Second Reading, I was bombarded with emails from its public affairs arm saying, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” but the question needs to be asked. It is the PFA’s members who are complaining about it and saying that it is not servicing them properly. It should be asking why that is happening. These are PFA members who have paid into its funds over the years, and if they are not being treated well, questions need to be answered. According to new clause 13, the Secretary of State must set out the minimum requirements for the scheme, a timescale for the scheme’s establishment and arrangements and a timescale for periodic review of the scheme. Furthermore, all specified competition organisers should jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme through the formation of a joint co-ordinating committee. Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer would be eligible for the scheme. To me, this goes beyond football. If research is discovered that helps dementia, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease, the rest of society wins. This is something that football can lead and change society with. This scheme will provide crucial care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition that is deemed to have been caused by or contributed to by playing football. A panel of independent experts must be appointed to determine whether a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused by, or contributed to by, playing or training activities within the English football leagues. It will also determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in each case. The independent football regulator must ensure that the joint co-ordinating committee acts on the panel’s determinations, to ensure that ex-players and their families get the support they need. This is a matter of urgency. Ex-players who have given so much joy should be treated with dignity and respect, and supported when they need to be. This new clause would ensure that. I pay tribute to campaigners including Michael Giles, son of Johnny, and John Stiles, son of Nobby. They have campaigned with dignity and respect and with a quiet determination, and it is time we showed the same respect to them. Denying or ignoring the link between football and neurological conditions is no longer sufficient. Recently we lost Alan Peacock, who starred for Middlesbrough and Leeds in the 1960s. He can be added to the long list of names, including Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton, his brother, who died of dementia; Martin Peters; Ray Wilson; and, of course, Nobby Stiles. The connection between football and neurological conditions acquired later in life must be addressed in this Bill, and if it is not, it must be addressed somewhere else. This Government, especially a Labour Government, should treat injuries caused by or contributed to by football like any other workplace or industrial injury, and that is what my new clause would ensure. We on this side are the party for workers, and regardless of the industry, it is our job to support and protect them, especially as their union, in their words, lets them down. Since football has contributed so much to our economy and, more personally, to fans’ happiness, it is only common decency to support players when they are in need. This cannot be ignored any longer. Not only must support be provided, but the independent football regulator must be there for them.

• 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?