Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

I disagree with the position that any time we amend a Bill in this place, it is ultimately deficient and unworkable. That is not how it works. All I am asking the Chamber to do today is to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so it can continue its work, which was interrupted, of scrutinising the Bill.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous with interventions. Is she willing to share with the House what, if any, amendments the Lords made, besides the two she has mentioned, that she thinks should have been added to the Bill, and, if so, why they were not?

[Lauren Edwards]

There were a number of amendments around points of clarification—some external organisations wanted some words made a little clearer, although they seem robust to me—that I certainly believe could be made in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

Sorry, I will not take interventions.

Those peers did not show the same respect for the repeatedly expressed will of those who face the end of their lives.

[Sam Rushworth]

Does the hon. Member acknowledge that the handful of peers she refers to include the former presidents of the British Medical Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists, a leading professor of palliative medicine, a former chief executive of NHS England, two former Attorney Generals and the former president of the family division of the High Court?

[Christine Jardine]

I do, but they are each one individual, and each of the professional organisations is neutral, and believe me, I envy them on that.

We have the responsibility to make the decision. The majority of us have already said that this is the best Bill we can produce. We—the majority of us—have made that decision once already, and we sent it to the other place. If we do that again today, I hope that those in the other place listen and take that on board and that the handful of peers who blocked it—

Fathers and Positive Male Role Models

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank Members from across the House for supporting this debate. As I prepared for it, I had in my mind’s eye the children and young people I represent across the Bishop Auckland constituency, who need active fathers and male role models in their lives, as well as the men who do their best to nurture, guide, teach, protect, provide, entertain and love as they raise children, often while juggling multiple other responsibilities and worries.

I want to make three points: first, that fathers and positive male role models are essential for addressing the challenges we face as a nation; secondly, that active fatherhood is good for men’s mental health and wellbeing; and, thirdly, that good public policy should support active fatherhood and the presence of positive male role models in young people’s lives. The importance of fathers and positive male role models cannot be overstated.

In 2015, Pope Francis observed that we are living through not an era of change, but the change of an era. Today’s children and youth are growing up in an uncertain world that is very different from the one I grew up in during the ’80s and ’90s. Our country faces profound challenges that have increased people’s sense of insecurity and worry. Tomorrow marks 25 years since 9/11 and the start of the war on terror, which has never really ended. Next came a global financial crash and a fall in living standards from which households in our communities have not recovered. We face a new cold war with Russia, economic uncertainty, extreme weather, and AI accelerating at such a pace that we do not know what the world will look like in five years from now. Our rising generation—the first to grow up in the era of social media—are experiencing a mental health crisis, a youth unemployment crisis and even an identity crisis.

What is consistent in this world of uncertainty? It is the love and security offered by familial bonds—the unique, deep connections of love, trust and mutual support that tie family members together—and the role of fathers is important in that. I must add a caveat: implicit in my definition of fatherhood is a positive, supportive and loving individual. I know that, sadly, there are children who suffer under the scrutiny and abuse of the men in their family unit. If I may be so bold, those men are not fathers, hence I also speak of positive male role models from whom young people can receive care and mentorship outside of the home.

The evidence is compelling: having an active father and positive male role models is strongly associated with positive outcomes in young people, while their absence is linked to bad outcomes and distress. A 2021 literature review by the University of Kent, commissioned by the previous Government, found that fathers’ increased involvement with their children positively affected their emotional, psychological and educational development, their future careers, and the future division of housework. In 2017, Klemera et al found that greater adolescent-father closeness was linked to a lower likelihood of a person self-harming. In 2008, Flouri found that higher levels of involvement by fathers and father figures correlated with higher levels of prosocial behaviour, self-esteem and happiness in adolescence for both sexes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I should declare that I speak as the dad of two young boys with a third on the way in November, so I have a vested interest when I say: what better way to make sure fathers are as involved as possible, as early on as possible, than to extend paternity and maternity leave? That is why it is so important that when the Government respond to their review into both those things, they extend paternity leave, in particular, to six weeks.

[Sam Rushworth]

I fully agree, and I am setting out the evidence base for that.

In 2018, Tracy et al found that higher levels of father involvement in children aged nine to 10 were associated with lower self-reported “violent perpetration” by both boys and girls when they reach 18 to 20. In 2010, Keung and Rees found that the frequency with which young people talked to their father about the things that mattered to them was positively associated with higher wellbeing and self-esteem. On the other hand, the Centre for Social Justice has warned:

“The disappearance of male role models is creating a generation of unhappy young boys.”

Its report “Lost Boys” found that fatherlessness and a lack of mentorship is deeply harming young men’s mental health, education and life paths.

Those are all things that I know from my own personal experience. We have this culture in politics—particularly those of us in the Labour party—of everyone needing a backstory to prove how working class they are, but while there are probably not many Members in this place whose family struggled financially like mine did, I want to be honest about how absolutely privileged I am. I grew up in a stable, loving home with a mum and dad who made raising us children their world.

Early memories of my dad include being taken on hikes through the countryside, and being dragged around old cathedrals and art galleries, if they were free—he was from Yorkshire—and taught to appreciate history and culture. We did not have a car in my early childhood, but mum and dad insisted I was a member of the “strong legs brigade” as I learned to walk everywhere. Rain was no problem; we had cagoules. Most of my clothes were hand-me-downs, but dad insisted on buying me Clarks shoes because he thought they were better for my growing feet, even though I noticed that his own shoes were often falling apart—he always gave us the best. As a lay church leader, dad would take me to visit older people and do acts of service for them. At Christmas we would spend our pocket money on gifts from B&M Bargains for kids less fortunate than us and drop them off on their doorsteps on Christmas eve.

Dad taught me to think of others. Sometimes that was explicit. We had a programme encouraged by our church, which we called family home evening, where one night a week was set aside for family time. It would include some sort of instruction—I remember being taught words like “integrity” and “kindness”—some fun game or activity, and always a home-made dessert.

As a junior civil servant in the auditing department, dad used to travel away from home, and when others were at the bar, he would always phone home to talk to us all. Wherever he went, he would get us a postcard with information about the place, expressions of love and some bad attempt at humour. I have kept them in a folder to this day. Another thing my dad taught me, and still teaches me today, is that the kindest thing I can do for my children is to love their mother. He taught me respect for women and womanhood.

Active fatherhood is not only good for children and youth; it is good for dads too. The Fatherhood Institute found that more active and involved fathers report lower levels of depression and higher relationship satisfaction than less involved fathers. That is certainly true for me; I am never happier than when spending time with Siobhain and the kids at home. Whenever I have faced disappointments or setbacks in my career, financial setbacks or times of stress and anxiety, and whenever I have questioned my worth, I have always known that I can walk through my front door and find my biggest fan club to welcome me back. They put my life in perspective.

I think my dad jokes are rubbing off on them, too. The other day, my 16-year-old daughter Jesse said to me, “Dad, you know you shouldn’t brush your teeth with your right hand?” I said, “No? Why’s that?” She said, “You’re supposed to use a toothbrush.”

But we have to be honest and recognise, too, that fatherhood is tough. The men’s health report commissioned by the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), notes that

“the transition to fatherhood can be a stressful and isolating experience. Men may turn towards unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and drugs, or neglect their own health and wellbeing by prioritising supporting their family…

Estimates suggest 5 to 15% of fathers experience anxiety during the perinatal period and 5 to 10% of fathers experience depression. The mental health of fathers during this period is not routinely assessed, which can result in fathers missing out on opportunities for diagnosis, support and interventions. Fathers frequently report feeling ignored or considered unimportant by healthcare professionals during the perinatal period. Additionally, fathers often question the legitimacy of their own mental health challenges and entitlement to support, emphasising their partner’s needs over their own.”

That brings me to my final point: good public policy can be pivotal in making fatherhood a positive experience for dads and children, while bad policy or the absence of support can limit fathers’ potential positive impacts. I will quickly highlight two ways in which I think that matters. I will not go into great detail, because I imagine that other people will do so in their speeches.

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

I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic. Although he and I are in different parties, we have long been on the same page about how important it is to have male role models and about the role of men and boys. Under the previous leadership, we were making progress, with a men and boys summit due to take place this summer. Unfortunately, it did not happen, but I am keen to see the Government bring it forward again. I hope he shares my ambition for it to happen, because for all the reasons he has talked about, it is imperative that the new leadership—the new Administration—keep grasping the nettle and take this forward. Does he agree?

[Sam Rushworth]

As I suspected I would, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I think that there will be cross-party consensus in much of this debate, and I am sure that the Minister was listening to his intervention and may want to comment on it.

The first weeks of a newborn child’s life can be not only stressful, but a beautiful bonding experience. But while mothers, typically, are full-time nurturing and feeding the newborn baby, fathers are often immediately back to work. I therefore support the Dad Shift campaign for six weeks’ paternity leave at 90% of pay. The dads who miss out tend to be working class men—people who are self-employed, people who work on the tools. Paternity leave should not be a preserve of the middle classes, and yet that is too often the case. The evidence for its benefits in terms of early bonding with a child is immense.

This is not just about the early years. It is also about rewarding employers that introduce flexible and family-friendly working practices. That is one of the reasons why I supported the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers campaign to Keep Sunday Special and limit the extension of Sunday trading hours. It is important to have at least a day when parents know they can be with their children. It is also why I will not shop late on Christmas eve. I do not think that shops should be open on Christmas eve; parents should be with their families and able to enjoy that time.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that it can be particularly difficult for men in the armed forces, who are often away? Even were there a willingness to provide paternity leave at 90% of pay, sometimes they simply cannot get the time. That is another thing that we need to consider when we are talking about male role models—men who work away.

[Sam Rushworth]

I do recognise that, and it is an important thing for the armed forces to consider. We need to ensure that all careers are as family friendly as possible. Let me take a moment, too, to pay respect to the people who make that sacrifice for us.

The final point that I want to put on the record is about family hubs and even parenting classes, which are slightly taboo. People get easily offended by the suggestion that they may need support with being a parent, as though somehow we are all born knowing these things. I know that if I could wind back the clock 19 years, I would be a better parent to my firstborn, because of the things that I have learned not only on the journey of being a parent, but through academic study of childhood.

The Government are rolling out Best Start family hubs, but not at the rate that we really need them. It should be a statutory provision. I remember attending antenatal classes with my wife. I learned about what those first few weeks of having a baby would be like, but after that you are on your own. There are so many important things about childhood development that parents want to learn and to do better.

Let me finish where I started. A Government who support fatherhood are a Government who support fathers to join mothers in doing just about the most important thing we can do: raising the next generation, during times of trouble and uncertainty, and building the resilience we need in that generation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

It was important to me to speak from the heart in my remarks today, but that meant taking time from being able to address various points. I trusted in my colleagues across the House to make those points for me in their speeches. That trust was not misplaced, and I thank everybody for that.

I particularly thank the people who spoke about paternity leave. We heard several comparisons of the UK and the much more generous offers in Europe. People mentioned the social inequality about who gets it, the importance of supporting mothers when they are recovering and the wellbeing benefits. People also brought in the family courts, CMS, social housing, and the importance of increasing the numbers of male teachers and caregivers. I appreciate the Opposition bringing up the men and boys summit and the response the Minister gave to that, and I really hope that there can be some cross-party work on how we address it.

It was wonderful to hear the Minister proudly confirm that this is a pro-family Government and set out those ideas of purpose, belonging and connection. I feel that we too often look just to Government, and teachers sometimes say that we look to them for all the answers to the problems in the rising generation, but a lot of it starts in the home. Fathers play such an important role. We cannot keep overlooking it, because it is vital for the future of that generation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member makes a good point. The system had got to a place where prisoners were not being released on Fridays. It is my understanding that that was relaxed, and I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at that again.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

At the weekend, I was visited in my constituency surgery by one of the many hard-working prison officers from Durham—himself a victim of the chaos in the justice system that the previous Government left behind. Before he left, he wanted me to know just how bad it is and why people are being released early.

As we all know, 800 prisoners were released early on the Conservatives’ watch, so bad was the chaos they created. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), says that it is getting worse. That is because of the chaos they created—it got worse every year on their watch, too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, both for the victims of crime and for our hard-working prison officers, he will do what it takes to get to the bottom of this? He has referenced the paper-based system. Without pre-empting Dame Lynne Owens’s review, will we be moving away from that 1980s paper-based system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right: there were 17 releases in error per month in 2024. Just in the Conservatives’ last days in office, there was a step change in those releases in error, and it very much started back in 2021 on their watch. But why did it start? It was because of the complexity of the system and the need to introduce new mechanisms to get prisoners out of an overheated prison system while being able to lock up the most violent people. That is why it has happened. Now, of course, we will do everything we can to get a grip.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

When I was a child, my parents shielded me from death. Centuries of art, literature and religion taught me that death was something noble or even slightly romantic. When I became an adult, I learnt pretty quickly that that was not the case. For far too many, it is anything but and certainly not noble. The deathbed for far too many is a place of misery, torture and degradation, a reign of blood and vomit and tears. I see no compassion and beauty in that, only profound human suffering. In 10 years of campaigning on this issue, I have spent many, many hours with dying and bereaved people, which has, time and again, reinforced my view.

I am a co-sponsor of the Bill and I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for choice at the end of life. I could give a speech to promote the Bill, but my hon. Friend—and I do call her a friend—the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has done that remarkably well. In my speech I want to address some of the common issues that have been raised, and that will no doubt be raised during the debate, with which I struggle.

First, we will no doubt hear an awful lot about the overseas experience. I am married to a Canadian, and I can tell the House that they love their children just as much as we do. The idea that the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Spanish and Austrians care little for their relatives, or indeed for the wider society in which they live, is frankly offensive. We should not pretend that somehow we are special or different. They have thought as profoundly on these issues as we have over the past 10 years. We can learn from them, and design a system for our own sensibilities and culture, as they have done. They all have different laws on abortion, some of which we would not pass in this House, but that does not mean we should not have abortion laws here. We are a 1,000-year-old democracy, and we should be able to design legislation that deals with this issue for ourselves.

The second issue that has been raised with which I have struggled regards the impact on the NHS and on judges. People are already dying; they are already in the national health service and entitled to care. Even if we think there will be an impact, are people seriously telling me that my death, my agony, is too much for the NHS to have time for, or too much hassle? It is even claimed that such matters would overload the judges—that I should drown in my own faecal vomit because it is too much hassle for the judges to deal with. We send things from this House to the NHS and to judges all the time. Is anyone suggesting that we should not create the new offence of spiking, which has come through this week, because judges are overworked? Of course not. They will cope as they have done with all sorts of things that we have sent from this House over the years, and we should not countenance the idea that some logistical problem will get in the way of our giving a good death to our fellow citizens.

I also want to address directly those Members who are considering voting against the Bill, to ensure that they are clear in their minds that a vote against the Bill is not a passive act. There are two states of being on offer today. I have to break some news to Members: whatever happens to the Bill today, people with a terminal illness will still take their lives. If the Bill falls today, we will be consigning those people to taking their lives in brutal, violent ways, as they are at the moment, and will see increasing numbers of our fellow citizens making the trip to Switzerland if they can afford it. We know that between 600 and 700 people a year are killing themselves in violent ways—shooting themselves, throwing themselves in front of trains, taking overdoses in lonely, horrible circumstances. As I said, many are going to Switzerland, but more than that are lying in hospital—I guarantee that there will be somebody over the river in St Thomas’ hospital now who is refusing treatment and starving themselves to death because they cannot face what is in front of them.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we had a choice today? We have come here to debate assisted dying, but we could have come here to build cross-party consensus on how finally, once and for all, to fix palliative care in this country. We could have come to look at a funding consensus, as that does need to be cross-party. I agree with his point that voting no is also a choice, but what follows from that should be a cross-party consensus on how we fix palliative care.

[Kit Malthouse]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and what a surprise it is that the conversation about palliative care has started. We were not having that conversation before this Bill came forward. The evidence from the Health and Care Committee, published only in February this year, shows that palliative care and assisted dying go hand in hand.