Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and doff my cap to him for his 21 sittings in Committee. When the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the Bill, it said that eight of the 23 impact assessments were “not fit for purpose”. Is he any more confident that that has been rectified through the amendments?

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about welfare, but there is a wider issue when it comes to rugby union in terms of participation. If the rules are constantly changing and the game is different every time we watch it every season, why would people join if there is a risk of the rules changing and of injury? As a rugby enthusiast, I want to see young people joining because of what it gave me. Does he share the same concerns about the wider implications of not understanding the game being played?

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech about the financial impact, but with all these clubs it is about the fans and the jobs that go out into the community. Does he agree that when we saw this situation in football, we had the fan-led review? Would it not therefore be wise for the Government to consider doing something similar in rugby? By having a look, they could lift the stones, pull the cover back and see what is actually going on with the state of rugby union in England.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  If you were to come to Hinckley to watch the rugby, Sir Desmond, I would suggest going to the Union Inn. When you walk in, especially given it is Six Nations weekend, you will see lots of rugby quotes along the top of the room. The first that catches my eye is: “The relationship between the Welsh and the English is based on trust and understanding. They don’t trust us and we don’t understand them.” I am able to say that because I am half-Welsh and half-English. The fight that will ensue this weekend will be interesting. I should declare an interest: until recently, my brother was the sports and exercise doctor for Bath Rugby and had been there for many years. I should also declare that my father is a Bath Rugby season ticket holder. I too am a Bath Rugby fan, which makes it all the more difficult to represent a constituency in Leicestershire—especially during the pandemic, when I was hit with 150 emails from Leicester Tigers fans asking for support. What I love about rugby union is being able to write back to those constituents and say, “I will give you support, provided that Bath are above you in the table when it comes forward.” I am pleased that at this time Bath is sitting pretty at the top of the premiership, above Leicester. Long may that continue. This Saturday, I am heading to Hinckley rugby club, which is a fantastic community club and a great feeder for some of the great players we have seen in Leicester and also in England colours. The club has done an incredible job of bringing multi-sports places together. That is a testament given the travesties we have seen with the pandemic and what it has done to the sport. It becomes more personal and professional as a MP, given that Wasps was just down the road from me. As has been mentioned, we have lost Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and the Jersey Reds. The question is why. What is going on? As has rightly been talked about, this storm has been brewing for a while. It is a combination of how to grow the game; player welfare; where the revenue comes from; who will buy clubs, and in the case of Worcester, why they have bought it and what they will do with it; and what the future of our game will be. In the light of the storm that has been brewing, I asked the Government in December whether they would conduct a review into the governance and finances of rugby. The Minister answered that, while rugby union “has a vital role to play in our national identity”, there was no intention “to conduct a review into the finances or governance of rugby union at this time.” Fast forward to this year and, on 9 January, the BBC reported on grassroots representatives of rugby calling for a petition to sack the RFU board chief executive. According to the BBC article, this resulted from concerns about the £1.1 million compensation package for the chief executive, record financial losses for the governing body, job losses, perceived leadership failings to save liquidated clubs such as London Irish, Wasps, Worcester and the Jersey Reds, the calamitous roll-out of new rules on tackle height in 2023, money spent paying out contracts to fire England coaches, and a climate of lost confidence and trust from thousands of volunteers in the game. The RFU initially rejected the calls for a summit meeting because the no-confidence petition lacked the required signatures, but it was later reported that a special general meeting will take place on 27 March. Strikingly, I attended a similar debate last week about football governance. When the Minister spoke—I have picked out a few bits—she said: “Despite bigger revenues than ever coming into the game, too many loyal fans have had their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and ultimately the worry that their cherished clubs might be lost.” She went on to say: “Being an appropriate owner means that club custodians must be suitable; we are protecting fans from irresponsible owners. Having a sensible business plan means that clubs will need clear financial plans, with detail on risk management and resource plans for owners. Having proper engagement with fans on key issues means setting a minimum standard for fan engagement. We are ensuring protections on changes to club crests, home kit and club names and giving fans a voice in the day-to-day running of their club. Clubs will need a licence to play. They will not be able to join closed-shop breakaway leagues or move around without proper consultation.” —[ Official Report, 6 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 228WH-229WH.] If anything, the RFU is seemingly in an even more precarious position than our football colleagues. I am not trying to pit one against the other; I am simply saying that there is a similarity when it comes to managing sport. If Members do not believe me, they only have to look at the proposals by an American company for a touring premiership or touring clubs. A breakaway league is a serious proposition. What would happen then to the domestic game? What would happen to the regional game, including the competitions across Europe? How would that fit? I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am simply saying these are the realities. People are trying to make sport profitable, but at what detriment? If it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander? There is an argument for looking into what is going on. It seems like the grassroots do not trust or understand the chief executive and the RFU team, and vice versa. Therefore, it seems paramount that the Government ask for a review of the governance and finances to ensure that the game we all love in this room is on a sustainable footing.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member who, as always, is making a fantastic speech. He is always a champion for the Union, and rugby union is also suffering in Wales and Scotland. Does he have a view on whether we should have a sit-down discussion? Rugby union is devolved, but it is important to ensure sustainability across all four nations so that there is an abundance for future generations.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right that the last Government appointed two people to look at this issue, but we are three years on and still the clouds are coming. Will she commit to a review of the finances and governance, a bit like the fan-led review, to ensure transparency and open up this debate so that the fans, the volunteers, the players and the Executive can all see the state of play? We as a country can then make a judgment about the best way to handle that.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  A fan-led review.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary has talked about neighbourhoods and communities, but I have not heard her talk about the rural communities that I represent, and the rural crime force. What will the Bill deliver for them? I am very lucky to be in Leicestershire, where we have a rural crime team, which saw crime drop by 24% in its last report, but machinery being taken has a massive impact. Can she talk me through any measures that are being brought forward that will benefit my community?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When the law favours identity over principle, it ceases to be justice at all—Magna Carta taught us that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Justice Secretary comes to the Chamber to explain why, under this Government, sentencing is going to become about who someone is, and not what they have done?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  Wherever people go in the world, whichever bar they walk into, the one thing we can guarantee is that they will see a premier league game being played. That is the strength of the United Kingdom’s export and the stranglehold that we have on football across the world. Any other country would want to topple us from that position, so we must be very careful when we look to regulate in this space. That does not mean that I do not have sympathy; just down the road from me is Coventry City, which to say the least has had a turbulent time in its dealings with the premier league and now with its rebuild. I want to concentrate on one area that I think is really important. When sentence is passed on a criminal, there is a mechanism through which the Government can ask the Parole Board to have another look. That would work really well in this situation. We need an independent regulator to satisfy FIFA and UEFA, but Parliament also needs to be able to hold people to account. To find an example, we need only look at when FA cup replays were taken away last year. The public were upset, the clubs were upset, but the decision was taken. I argue that a parole board mechanism would allow the Government to say to the regulator, “Have another look.” If it still decides to do it, fantastic, but at least we will have had our say.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  The decision to take FA cup replays away, for example, was taken by the FA itself without any consultation; that is the difficulty. That is a prime example of the heritage of the game being taken away, and that mechanism would not quite address that. I will be happy to meet the Minister to talk through an idea that may well fit.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The difference between “decent” and “deceit” may only be one letter, but the gap defines a man’s character. Given what we saw on Friday, whatever the context of that meeting, when the Prime Minister next speaks to President Trump will he remind him of that and make sure that decency is at the centre of any negotiations?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my Leicestershire colleague for giving way. He will know that housing targets and housing numbers have gone up in Leicestershire—the figures in my patch are up by 59% and 73% respectively. However, the figures for Leicester city are dropping by 31%. Why is that happening when Leicester has brownfield sites and the best connections? If we need houses everywhere, should we not see them being built in cities as well, rather than just in the countryside?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While we as politicians can read and scrutinise those real impacts, when pensioners who will have to pay tax on their state pension come to the hon. Gentleman’s surgeries—they will have to do a tax self-assessment or pay it back—how will he explain to them exactly what is going on? They will not have the technical ability—many will, but some will not—to understand why they are being taxed.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to point to the amendments in front of us. New clause 3 looks at household income specifically. If he is so confident in the measures he and the Chancellor are putting forward, why will he not accept new clause 3, which has the ability to show just how fantastic the Budget and the Finance Bill are from the evidence base that we have?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. At Davos, the Chancellor said she had listened to that community. Why would she make changes for that community, but not the farming community, the pensioner community, the pupils at private schools or the SEND community, or indeed working businesses such as pubs, restaurants and charities, who are all seeing tax increases? Why was that community listened to, when no others were? Does he have any idea why that could be the case?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Government decided to take away the winter fuel payment, they said that people could apply for pension credit to try to get some support. The problem is that there are huge delays in getting pension credit. When the message was first put out, the delay was 84 days. Five hundred new staff have been brought in, but it is still 56 days, which is above the 50-day limit. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that people have now passed through winter and still do not have the funds to which they are entitled under this Government, and which are not there?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the shadow Minister. Only today, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that our economy is security, and security starts with our defence and looking after ourselves—and that includes energy security. Is it not ridiculous not to use North sea oil—our own reserves—to ensure that security? It is the cleaner side of oil and gas. Using our own reserves also comes with jobs, and prevents us importing oil and gas in a volatile world.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Saturday I joined the 1st Newbold Verdon Scouts group for part of their celebration of 70 years of scouting. They chose 22 February because it commemorates the birth of Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts. It was a testament to the Scouts to see the kids there delivering speeches and the strength of character that they have learned through the Scouts. May we have a debate to celebrate the 70 years of the Scouts and to thank the volunteers—the likes of Steve Dowell and his team—who give up their time to support young people in getting the skills they need for future life?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  May I, too, welcome the Minister? Gosh, what a debate to come into—it is such a wide-ranging field. I am so glad that she has been ably supported by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) who put in a fantastic effort and managed to cover so many topics. When I came to look at this debate, I thought about the best way I could try to touch on many of the topics. I thought a physiological view might be quite useful, starting with birth. Earlier this week, we had a debate on maternity services. The point is this: there is an explicit risk in pregnancy and birth, but we should do all we can to mitigate those risks. We know from the last 10 years that the maternal mortality gap has reduced from five times to two times, but much more can still be done. I am pleased that we heard that the Government are working through getting the Ockenden recommendations in place. That leads me on to talk about postpartum depression, breastfeeding, and supporting recovery post-caesarean section delivery or episiotomy. We have heard about infertility and miscarriage. We have not even mentioned looking after a newborn. These are tough things to go through. Young girls have to deal with body image, which is a personal hobby horse of mine. We heard about eating disorders. In 2023, we saw an investment of £4 million into new research, but there is still much more to do. Of course, that leads us to cosmetic surgery and when we need to regulate there. There is the issue of menarche and managing periods, not only from the contraceptive angle, but what to do when they are too heavy, too painful, irregular or do not happen at all. All these things require time, dedication and compassion to find out what works for that individual and what can be done to support, inform and empower that woman. Returning to medical problems, Members have spoken eloquently about incontinence, as well as polycystic ovary disease and endometriosis, which are really common problems that are hard to diagnose and even harder to treat. I hope that the roll-out of 161 community diagnostic centres, which the new Government commit to carrying on with, make a giant leap forward in allowing women to get the diagnosis they need. There is, of course, screening. We talked about breast screening, but cervical screening has not been mentioned. Screening is so important, and I urge every woman to consider it. What about the successful roll-out of the HPV vaccine, over a decade ago, to dramatically reduce cervical cancer? From 2019, it has also been offered to boys to help reduce that further. We need support for both lobular and ductal breast cancer. We have not really mentioned ovarian cancer and how difficult it is to pick up, often happening far too late. Working through life, there is the menopause and the impact it can have on women: confusion, depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction. It is still not well understood. The last Government, along with many from across the House, campaigned for better understanding to create a supportive environment. This is still developing, and long may it do so. Choice is hard too. Non-HRT or HRT? There are pros and cons. Of course, we had difficulties with shortages during the pandemic. Linked to the menopause, and not mentioned today, is the risk in old age of osteoporosis and fractures. That is critical. We know that women are significantly more affected by that than men, and prevention is much better than dealing with a broken hip or a broken wrist. I could go on. Women’s health was rightly a priority under the last Government, which had almost 100,000 responses to their call for evidence to deal with the gender health gap. The last Government published the country’s first women’s health strategy in 2022, and expanded specialist women’s health hubs across England to improve access and quality of care for services such as menstrual problems, contraception, pelvic pain and menopause. They improved access to hormone replacement therapy and addressed barriers to health services faced by women who suffered from trauma from things like domestic abuse. Further still, the Government appointed Dame Lesley Regan as the first women’s health ambassador to step up efforts to improve women’s health, and Helen Tomlinson as a cross-Government menopause ambassador to find out the experiences of women employed in different sectors. Turning to the issues here and now, I have some questions for the Minister, and some context. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wrote to me on 29 January, just before the announcement by the Labour Government, with the following: “We express our deep concern about the speculation of the Government’s decision to remove the target for all ICBs to set up and run a women’s health hub in the planning guidance”. It went on to say: “Removing the target may well lead to women’s health hubs being closed down, and a worrying rollback on the progress made in improving women’s health services for your constituents. It is self-defeating for the UK Government to close women’s health hubs when they are a clear success story for reducing waiting lists and moving care closer to home—they should instead be given ringfenced funding and expanded.” I know the Minister cares deeply about improving women’s health, but it is hard not to see this is as a potential row back. My first question is: what commitment can the Government give, in the light of dropping these targets, that women’s health remains a priority? Secondly, to help demonstrate this commitment, would the Government consider the call by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for sustained investment in expanding women’s health hubs? Considering what we have heard today from the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), would the Department make a request in the spring statement and spending review to see that this would be the case? If not, why not? I have spoken in the past in this Chamber about learning from previous work, so my third question is, how many times have the Government met with the women’s health ambassador since the general election? Can the Minister set out how this role would work alongside the Government’s new menopause ambassador? I hope that in asking these kinds of questions, it will kickstart the system into looking at how we can improve women’s health. In the short time I have left, it would be remiss of me not to pick up on some of the key issues at the moment: osteoporosis, menopause, workforce and waiting lists. There has been some concern about the Labour Government’s commitment to their own promise of universal fracture liaison services by 2030. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has said: “We all want to believe that Ministers will honour their promise, but people with osteoporosis tell us their faith is waning. It doesn’t need to be like this—we appeal to Wes Streeting to restore trust and confidence in the specific, measurable pledge that he campaigned on, and for which many people voted.”

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minster comment on HRT medication and making sure that there is equal access to it across the country?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  I am really sorry; I am tight on time. Question No. 4 is, could the Minister kindly clarify, confirm and commit to that promise? If not, why not? On the menopause, when the women’s strategy was announced in 2022, the then shadow Health Secretary—now the current Health Secretary—said: “I challenge the Secretary of State to go further than the proposal he outlined to train incoming medical students and incoming doctors. What plans do the Government have for clinicians who are already practising? We need to upskill the existing workforce, not just the incoming workforce. However, let us be clear: informing clinicians is no good if we do not also improve access to hormone replacement therapy, so where is the action in the strategy to end the postcode lottery for treatment?” —[ Official Report , 20 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 977.] As we are now eight months into the Labour Government, question No. 5 is, when will the strategy document he talked about be produced and presented to the House? Has he made an assessment since July 2024 of HRT medication access in terms of locality? Turning to workforce, we know that the demand for women’s services is outstripping the supply of generalist and specialist support. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has highlighted ongoing problems with maternity workforce staffing and agreed that the NHS long-term workforce plan was a good first step on the way to properly staffed maternity services. Therefore, question No. 6 is this: we know that the Government will be looking at a refresh of the plan this summer, so will the Minister give an undertaking today that women’s health will be a priority in both primary and secondary care? Will she update the House on the obstetrics workforce planning tool, which the DHSC commissioned to help maternity units calculate staffing requirements, and when it will be rolled out across the country? Given that time is tight, I will close by saying that I have heard it said that a healthy woman means a healthy family, a healthy community and a healthier world. That is hard to dispute that; it is now for the House to deliver it.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I have a feeling that if I had an invisibility cloak like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) seems to have, it might well help us win in Ukraine. I simply ask this: negotiators have been given a negotiation to do, so in the name of transparency, can the Government tell us which budget the funding will come out of? They must know when they go to negotiate what they are actually negotiating.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  As the shadow Defence Secretary is aware, it was the Prime Minister who came forward and said how he was going to spend that funding. The Opposition need to know if the defence increase he announced includes the Chagos deal. The Government have made that decision but they have to put it to the House first. It does not make any difference if the announcement has already been made to Parliament, because we are talking about the defence budget.