Fathers and Positive Male Role Models

Debate between Sam Rushworth and Jayne Kirkham

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Sam Rushworth and Jayne Kirkham

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—like most Labour Members, I am proud to be supported by trade unions. Others have mentioned the absence of Reform Members from this debate, and of course we know why they are not here: they do not support the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, but they do not have the guts to say that to their voters.

I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those who feel insecure at work. They are the people who do not have assets and safety nets, who are not mobile and confident, who live pay day to pay day, and who feel that they must take whatever pay and conditions they are offered because they are terrified of the alternative. It is 12 years since this party announced a commitment to end exploitative zero-hours contracts as a means of controlling workers and avoiding employment obligations.

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

I am a former teaching assistant, and many teaching assistants were working under a form of zero-hours contracts. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill, as well as bringing back the negotiating body for teaching assistants and support staff at school, will greatly help them by taking away the zero-hours contracts under which they previously suffered?

[Sam Rushworth]

The Bill absolutely will do so.

I remember speaking to a young couple when I was canvassing 12 years ago. The young woman had just had a baby, but because she was on a zero-hours contract, she was unable to get the maternity rights to which she was otherwise entitled. Her young partner, who likewise was on a zero-hours contract, talked about his pay and conditions at work, and after asking him why he did not challenge his employer, I understood that so many young people do not feel able to do so because they feel so insecure and sometimes just so grateful to be in a job. That is why I am speaking against Lords amendment 1.

It is absolutely right that the onus be placed on the employer to ensure that people are given regular contracts, and that we are not asking people who are often the most vulnerable and insecure workers to go to their employer and start asserting and demanding their rights. I have met many constituents over the past year or so, and I have learnt about the sheer vulnerability that, sadly, many working people feel, such as a tenant who tells me that they are frightened of demanding rights from their landlord because they fear they will be evicted. Of course, Reform also voted against our reforms banning no-fault evictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the Bill speaks to. There is a power gap between the ordinary working person who does not necessarily know their rights and is unable to assert them, and the sort of person who, for example, might buy a house in their girlfriend’s name. I will progress.

I also oppose the attempt, in Lords amendment 106, to water down the Bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal. No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. The previous Government extended the time before you could even claim unfair dismissal to two years. That left far too many people vulnerable to being dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they had demanded their rights at work.

I had an experience of that myself. I have never talked about it before, because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Shortly after becoming the branch rep for the University and College Union when I was a college lecturer, I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of its staff. The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing it into disrepute. Thankfully, I was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time—only because they had forced me to teach an HR course—and give myself a crash course in human rights law. I left that place with a payout.

I remember the shame I felt at the time for signing the non-disclosure agreement. I wanted to fight for other people, but at the end of the day I was terrified that I was going to miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children. That is the position that far too many people find themselves in. So what we are doing on non-disclosure is right. I have to ask all Members, as they vote on whether to water this down, whose side they are on. Will they be on the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment, rather than on the side of the whistleblowers?

In my mind’s eye, as I vote this evening, will be real people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I want to tell the House about two or three of them. A few months ago, I received correspondence from a parish councillor who is also a local farmer and a member of the Labour party. He told me of his concern that every day he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask them what they were doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out that they were care workers. They were dropped off in the morning and did a visit. At another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later. But they were only paid for the specific time that they were in people’s houses; they were not paid for the entirety of the day. That is a workaround to avoid paying them the minimum wage. The Bill makes provision for a fair pay agreement in adult social care to address such practices. By the way, he then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait in each day between shifts.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, was a Unison rep, and I have taken contributions from Unison and other unions towards my election expenses. The point my hon. Friend makes is very real in Cornwall too. Migrant care workers were left on a bench in a village from the early morning shift to the late evening shift. That must be addressed, and it will be addressed under the Bill.

[Sam Rushworth]

It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.