Minister for Men and Boys

Debate between Luke Evans and Sam Rushworth

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Men and Boys.

This is about men and women, not men or women. It is about boys and girls, not boys or girls. It is crucial to set that out from the start. John Gray was clear in his book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. We all intrinsically know and feel that there are inherent differences in the way men and women deal with problems and have problems. Tony Blair spotted that women were struggling, and in May 1997 brought in a Minister for women to look across Government to try to sort out the problems facing women and girls.

From a Conservative perspective, this is ideologically difficult because we broadly do not like to segregate people by splitting them into groups, but one thing that unites us is the obvious fact that there cannot be one without the other. We currently have a Minister for women and girls; we do not have a Minister for men and boys. During my six years in Parliament, I have looked at these topics. I started with the position that I did not want to see such a Minister, but all the data and metrics coming forward show that boys and men are broadly falling behind. I have come to the conclusion that without a Minister for men and boys, working with a Minister for women and girls, they will continue to do so.

I will canter through some of the evidence. Let us start with health, my background. The most alarming stat is that suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50—three times more common in men than in women. Between the ages of 15 and 19, for every girl who takes her own life, three and a half boys do likewise. What about cancers? Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men, and more than two thirds of liver disease deaths are of men. That is a fourfold increase in death rates from liver disease over the past 40 years.

Some might say that the Government are covering these issues in the men’s health strategy, which is partly true, but let us take something more tricky. I have done a lot of work on steroid abuse and image and performance-enhancing drugs. According to the Priory Group’s research, 10 years ago about 50,000 people were using such drugs. Now, 500,000 to 1 million people are using them to improve their musculature and the way they look. That use is heavily male dominated—so much so that at injection sites where people go illegally to use drugs, about 80% of needle exchange usage is related to steroid abuse. One in 10 gym-goers suffers from bigorexia—wanting to get more muscular. Those are inherently men-related problems.

When I raise that with Government, I am first pointed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because it is sport-related, and UK Anti-Doping, but that covers elite sport, and not anything else. The Department of Health and Social Care says that it is a sport problem, an education problem, a Home Office problem or a justice problem. Therein lies the difficulty.

To widen this further, let us move on to education. The Centre for Social Justice’s “Lost Boys” research shows that at GCSE, boys achieve on average half a grade lower than girls in every subject. At A-level, girls outperform boys on average by over a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Female students outnumber male students by three to two for university admissions. House of Commons Library research shows that in spring term 2024, boys were more than 1.5 times more likely to be suspended than girls, and more than twice as likely to be excluded from school.

Let us translate that into employment, which falls under the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business and Trade. Statistics this month from the Office for National Statistics show that there are one million working-age men, aged 16-64, without jobs—the highest since October 2014. The unemployment rate for men is at 5.8%. The last time it was that high was in June 2015. The UK unemployment rate for young males aged between 18 and 24 hit 17% in the three months to December 2025; that surpassed the covid peak that we had, and is the highest rate since 2014. According to the Library, when it comes to young people not in education, employment or training—very topical—historically, young women were more likely to be out of work and education. However, the gap narrowed from 2010 and, since 2016, it has swapped over, with generally more young men being NEET than young women.

What impact does that have on the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice? Some 96% of our prisoners are male; only 4% are female. The CSJ report shows that men make up 90% of hospital admissions for knife assaults. In 2022-23, boys accounted for 87% of homicide victims among people aged 16 to 24, and nine in 10 victims of teenage violence were male. Nine in 10 of our boys in custody said they had been excluded from school. I have not even mentioned the online world, which is covered by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are many stats that I could mention, but they all point to the fact that these are cross-departmental issues and, more importantly, cross-societal issues.

I want to touch on the culture for men and boys. Many, many people are starting to raise the alarm about what is happening to young boys and men, from celebrities such as Gareth Southgate and David Gandy to think-tanks like the Centre for Social Justice, Equimundo and the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, and charities including Movember. Why is this happening? My analysis is that, over the past 20 or 30 years, we have been fantastic at championing what women should be, what positive role models should be and what they look like in society. That has been fantastic, and they have had great success from doing that. But, at the same time, we seem to have slightly diminished what it is to be a good man. It used to be a gentleman: someone who was polite, held doors and looked after their other half. Now, men are a little more unsure about that.

If we add in the term “toxic masculinity”, we really have a problem. We do not often hear about toxic femininity. On the one side, we have told women exactly where they should be, what they should do and what they can achieve; on the other, we have taken away the good role model for men, and then potentially demonised them by calling them toxic. No wonder men and boys are struggling to find their way in the world. I often ask the question, “What is a good man in the modern world?” I am yet to find a good answer. Research shows that, when young boys or young men are asked, “Who is your role model?”, they will not give an answer and, if they do, the role models are few and far between. How scary for society that we are not getting the role models for young men to look up to or aspire to be.

What evidence is there to back this up? The CSJ men in culture survey in 2025 was really helpful. It showed that 46%--almost half—agreed with the statement that modern dads are often treated as ineffectual or incompetent in popular culture. Some 76% agreed that today’s teenagers lack proper role models across popular culture. When Members are out and about, they can test that by asking, “Who do men look up to, and why?”, and see if they get an answer. It is actually a little worse than that. The “Lost Boys” report, also by the CSJ, cites Civitas polling that found that 41% of sixth form boys and girls have been taught, in school lessons, that boys are a problem for society. The Government are trying to deal with this, and they are well intended in what they are trying to do.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent speech. On boys being seen as a problem in society, does he agree that if we are worried about boys being receptive to messages such as those that come from Andrew Tate, we need to ask what we are putting boys through that could make them fertile soil for such messages?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and I will come on to Andrew Tate. That is my worry, and I have been raising concerns both in this House and outside about the dangers of labelling what young men could be. Only this week, the British Medical Journal published a paper on the topic of the Government’s misogyny plans and lessons, which said that while it is

“well intentioned, the UK government’s strategy to counter misogyny may inadvertently alienate vulnerable young men”.

It went on to say:

“The government’s strategy overlooks the causes that draw young men and boys towards online misogyny. Although the government purportedly aims to tackle the ‘root causes’ of misogynistic abuse, its argument relies on circular logic by claiming that misogyny itself is the cause of abuse.”

Here lies the problem, because I have also been concerned about the assessment of the impact of the likes of Andrew Tate. We all know that he is misogynistic, but what is missed in the media debate is why so many young boys were drawn to him in the first place. He was a world champion kickboxer and he stands up for the masculine traits of being strong, forthright and protective, but he used them to manipulate his position—and young people—to create an empire with a criminal nature behind it.

Unless we get at the root causes of what is going on, I fear that we will make the problem worse rather than better. A good example of that is the #MeToo movement. It was a fantastic movement in 2017, which did so much to uncover the horrendous sexual harassment and sexual assaults that went on. But it has had an impact: surveys in 2019 by the Harvard Business Review found that 19% of men said that they would be

“reluctant to hire attractive women”.

It also found that 21% were

“reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interpersonal interactions with men”—

for example, those involving travel—and 27% would avoid

“one-on-one meetings with female colleagues”.

That is because they are good men, and they were worried about the impact of how they could have been perceived. That is what happens when we do not have positive role models and a positive place in society for men and boys.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Luke Evans and Sam Rushworth

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context.

I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister. She put herself through a degree in pharmacy while on universal credit as a single parent of three children. That was not her choice; it was a position that was thrust upon her. What would the hon. Member say to people like her?

[Dr Evans]

I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve.

The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle.

At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.

Taxes

Debate between Luke Evans and Sam Rushworth

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I have confidence in the Chancellor to produce a Budget that will do the things that my constituents need it to. What my constituents are asking for, and what they voted for at the general election, is change.

Look what the Conservatives did to our justice system: prisons are 99.9% full, and we have a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice. We all know that our surgeries are crammed with these cases. Look at what they did to the asylum system, which has an enormous backlog. Whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy covid contracts, given the amount that they wasted. Millions a day were spent on hotels.

Look at what the Conservatives did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty have increased. The pattern between 1997-98 and 2022-23 can be described as a U-curve; poverty fell under the 13 years of the last Labour Government, and then relative and absolute child poverty increased. Look at what that means for the communities I represent: 16 Sure Start centres closed; primary school budgets are below their 2010 levels; transport for college students is expensive, and their education maintenance allowance was cut; youth services, boxing gyms and swimming pools have closed; and social infrastructure has disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years.

These are real challenges, but the problem is not just with our public services. Because the Conservatives robbed the capital budget to pay for day-to-day spending, they left Britain in the slow lane. Cancelling Labour’s Building Schools for the Future project left our schools and public buildings infested with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under the Conservatives. Cancelling High Speed 2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need.

All these problems come with a higher social cost. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff are sacked, we get more tax avoidance and fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, businesses have a bigger sick bill. When prisons are not built and the police are cut, there is more crime. When civil servants were cut, the previous Government had to spend £3 billion on agency staff.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Gentleman has missed something from his list: the Government’s own assessment shows that when winter fuel payments are cut, it puts 50,000 people into absolute poverty and 100,000 people into relative poverty. A 2017 report by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), now the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said that cuts to the payment would kill 4,000 people. Was that factored into the hon. Gentleman’s assessment when he went through the Lobby to vote on the measure?

[Sam Rushworth]

The only vote we ever had on the issue was a vote for or against an Opposition day motion. I was always clear that the original threshold that the Government set was far too low. I do not think that millionaires and asset-rich, wealthy pensioners should receive the payment. The policy, as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this winter, is as it should be.