Minister for Men and Boys

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech. Although we represent different parties, and although I believe he heckled me the last time I spoke in the Chamber, there is a great deal of unity on the issue. Perhaps this is a moment when men and boys and their needs are being recognised. We need to seize that moment. I declare an interest: I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues with the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies).

Men and women are different. They are different by birth and by nature, but also by socialisation. That is not to deny that there are many different ways of being male and being female. Indeed, in my own home, I am a man who is inclined to being emotional. I like musical theatre and baking, and I am married to a wonderful woman who likes mechanics and rugby. We have a happy and rich marriage. I do not think that we should stereotype men and women, but they are different, and we do have different socialisation. Gender inequality is real, and gender inequality hurts everyone differently. It is wrong to ignore the gendered aspects of challenges that limit any human being from fulfilling their potential. It was wrong when society did that for far too long to women and girls, and it is wrong that we continue to ignore some of the gendered issues that affect men and boys.

I represent a constituency, Bishop Auckland, where I see boys who have too often felt left behind. There is underachievement at every stage of education, there is a lack of emotional support and there is a system that too often blames boys rather than backing them. I was pleased to lead a debate last year on the educational disadvantage that keenly affects northern and particularly north-eastern working-class boys. I made the point that we only have to go back as far as the 1970s to see girls underachieving in the education curriculum. There was rightly a big public outcry and specific gendered strategies were developed, such as getting more girls into science and technology. That was the right thing to do.

Today, however, we see that girls are outperforming boys at every educational stage. The north-east has the lowest GCSE attainment nationally, and only 60% of boys are school-ready before they start early-years education, compared with 75% of girls. Boys go on to score half a grade lower on average at GCSE. They account for 70% of permanent exclusions and 95% of youth custody. In the area that I represent, one in seven young men is not in education, employment or training, which is nearly double the rate for young women. Structural inequality means that working-class boys start behind and stay behind.

I am pleased that the Government are making great strides in their strategy on violence against women and girls, which is timely and important. It is also important that boys and men be partners in that strategy, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 2 million men every year are victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse or stalking, representing 37% of the victims of that type of behaviour.

I was similarly pleased to see the Health Secretary launching a men’s health strategy on International Men’s Day. That was urgently needed, and it is great that it has been brought forward. I appreciate the comments that have been made in this debate about men’s mental health, which is a particular challenge in my community. Mental health challenges are driven by issues such as loneliness, but a common cause, which I see in my surgeries all the time, is men being denied access to their children. Through no fault of their own and with no accusation of wrongdoing, they are simply not able to enjoy a family life. That means children missing out on fathers, and fathers missing out on the company of children.

[Tessa Munt]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is an area of interest to me. I have been a long-term supporter of Families Need Fathers, although not necessarily Fathers4Justice, which pinged off out of that. I tried to work out exactly how many times judges have allowed child arrangements orders to be given to fathers, but no data is kept. If we do not have data about how many children live with which parent—or about where there are shared parental orders, which in my view have to be the route forward, except in exceptional circumstances—how can we possibly know what is happening?

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. We need a separate debate on that issue, and a much wider investigation.

I am pleased that online safety is also having its moment. Online safety is so important for our children, but it is also important for adults. I am particularly concerned by violent pornography. It harms women and girls, and it harms men and boys. It harms adults as much as it harms children. We need to take it much more seriously.

I have listed a few aspects of life that I believe are gendered and need a particular gendered approach: men’s health, education, work, fatherhood, safety. I do not know whether a men’s Minister is the answer— I certainly would not want to set men and women up in competition, because I think they are equal partners in addressing these challenges—but at the very least the Government need a men’s champion to ensure that we mainstream these issues, as we have been doing for decades. We have talked about gender mainstreaming, which has meant women and girls, but it also needs to mean men and boys, through different aspects of government, whether that is in relation to health, to education, to employment or to family law. We need to look at this together, for all our sakes.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate.

Men are often told that we do not talk enough about our feelings and that we bury our heads in the sand, and too often in this House and across Whitehall there is a tendency to overlook the challenges faced by men and boys. We rightly and frequently hear about the importance of protecting the rights of women and girls, and that is obviously very important, but equality must mean fairness for everybody across the United Kingdom. If we want to build a nation that everybody is proud to be part of, we must be prepared to confront the challenges facing men. We have a Minister for Women and Equalities and a Select Committee scrutinising that brief, while the civil service employs diversity and inclusion managers to promote the interests of seemingly any group other than men and boys. I am not claiming that that is done on purpose, but it needs to change.

This is not about diminishing the progress made in advancing opportunities for women and girls, but we must acknowledge that in several key areas, such as education, employment, justice and health, men face profound challenges that are simply not spoken about enough or dealt with. In education, the disparity starts early: only about 60% of boys are deemed to be school ready, compared with 75% of girls. The gap does not disappear, but persists through secondary education and beyond. Some 45,000 fewer men go to university and 18,000 fewer young men have started apprenticeships since 2017. At the same time, boys are more than twice as likely as girls to be permanently excluded from school.

Alongside the statistics, an unhelpful narrative has developed that boys are a problem to society and that they need to be managed. That does nothing to raise aspiration or instil pride and responsibility in young men. We see the issue even in working life. The number of young men unemployed for more than a year now stands at more than 107,000—the highest level since 2015, in part thanks to the economic decisions of the current Government, sadly. As we all know, long-term unemployment has serious social consequences. As has been mentioned, we have a male prison population of more than 90,000 and we have thousands of young men sleeping rough on any given night. That is not the life that any of us in this place would want for our sons, brothers or friends.

Finally, we cannot ignore the realities of men’s health. Men are more likely to become alcoholics or have addictions than women. Physically, men are more likely to be overweight, to suffer from cardiovascular disease and to die earlier than women from a range of conditions, including cancer. Most worrying of all is the fact that in England and Wales suicide is about three times more common among men than among women, and the gap continues to widen. This is the elephant in the room that we are simply not talking about enough. These outcomes demand serious and sustained attention.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank the hon. Member for also raising the issue of male suicide. I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but in my constituency, ManHealth, which ran men’s support groups, has lost its funding and the groups are no longer meeting. Does the hon. Member agree that we probably need dedicated funding streams looking specifically at male mental health and support groups?

[Mr Bedford]

I could not agree more. I think that, at times, Departments work in silos. Strategy is not often cross-departmental and decisions made in one Department mat have a massive impact on another, so I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Member makes.

As I said, these outcomes demand serious and sustained attention. I do see the merits of a Minister for men and boys, but I do not believe that the answer lies in creating another bureaucratic post that politicians can hide behind. When a group appears to be struggling, Whitehall groupthink leads to a new title, a new office or, God forbid, yet another quango, but symbolism does not deliver. We need real systemic and cultural change across Whitehall to improve outcomes for men, just like we do for women. Only then will we truly be able to improve the lives of not just men and boys, but everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

We need to do more than watch out; that is completely unacceptable. I know so many men who have been the victims of domestic abuse. That is shockingly bad.

[Sam Rushworth]

I believe I am correct in saying that we do not disaggregate domestic abuse figures by gender. What is reported as domestic abuse is often assumed to mean violence against women, but it is actually just domestic abuse. That can include abuse against men, who are included in those statistics. Will the hon. Member speak about that?

[Tessa Munt]

I absolutely agree. That goes back to the business of data. We need to have the data, and I ask the Minister to look at that issue as well. I have made several points about data and statistics. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot possibly make an intelligent assumption about anything.

Another area—to criticise my own gender—is that of children so often being used as a weapon against men. Again, this is something that I have seen in the groups in which I have been involved and in my work in the past: the use of children, most often—though not always—by women is a shocking indictment. We have not got to grips with that, and we absolutely need to.

I have listened to all the comments about education, and I want to make a quick observation about macho male culture. The President of the United States seems to typify what people might think of as an alpha male leader. His version of masculinity seems to see dominance, subordination of others and aggression as desirable and socially valued traits. His politics has been explicitly endorsed by Andrew Tate—I can hardly bring myself to say his name—but in that context, I thank Gareth Southgate. He raised the alarm in his public lecture that young men definitely do not have positive role models, which makes them vulnerable to the influence of online personalities who promote negative ideologies about women and the world generally. The world is not against men and boys, in my view, and people saying that that is the case is unhelpful. That is why we should laud the efforts of Gareth Southgate to rebalance that.

I will quickly comment on prostate cancer. One in eight men gets prostate cancer, and black men are twice as likely to get it as those of other colours, so screening for men with the relevant genetic variants is good—but that is for a very small group. Last weekend, I was pleased to be at Wells town hall in my constituency, where the Cheddar Rotary and the Wells Lions club, and a whole group of fantastic health professionals spent the day testing 320 men. The misfortune was that about 38 of them could not turn up, for one reason or another, but it is brilliant when that sort of stuff happens in our communities. That is a start, but we need Government to step up on prostate cancer.

I want to talk very briefly about male suicide. Some 14 men a day take their own lives. Again, there are some amazing things that happen. The all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, co-chaired by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), identified that many men view suicide as a rational solution to life’s events that they cannot solve any longer, whether that is relationship breakdown or financial pressures. Rather than viewing suicide as a clinical condition and a health issue, they see it as a life problem.

Here, I pay tribute to the late Derek Mead, who provides a room at the cattle market at Junction 24 on the M5 where health checks for farmers are available. There is also a lady called Susie Wilkinson in my constituency, who is part of the Farming Community Network. Those are people who support people in the community.

I will write to the Minister with several things that my party has asked for to promote mental health. There are so many things. There should be an MOT at key points in men’s lives, and in people’s lives generally. In conclusion I think that we probably need to have a Minister for men and boys in the short term.