Sam Rushworth MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I am coming on to talk about the importance of FE funding, while understanding the challenges the Government face. There is enormous demand to spend money everywhere, but I want to make the case for why we really need to resource FE. FE colleges endured years of under-investment. Funding per student fell by 11% over 14 years of Conservative government. Vocational education was too often treated as second class, and apprenticeship opportunities declined precisely at the moment we needed them most. Between 2017 and 2024, apprenticeship starts for under-19s fell sharply, while too much of the apprenticeship levy drifted away from creating genuine opportunities for young people to enter the labour market. At the very moment that Britain needed a skills revolution, we got drift. I spent some time as an FE college teacher during that period. It was a job that I loved. I think I loved it even more than this job because of the opportunity, teaching access to higher education courses, to work with school leavers who had struggled and with young adults who needed a second chance. I left because I was not really earning the minimum wage. That is how it is in our colleges. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the fantastic staff at Bishop Auckland College for the vital work they do as teachers, mentors and carers to people in their late teens and young adult years, and to the work they also do to tackle poverty. I regularly meet Principal Shaun Hope, because I regard Bishop Auckland college as a key partner in everything I would like to achieve in the place I represent. He recently told me that they have a closet of clothes that they give away, and that because of the poverty of the students going to the college, he has had to add extra budget to ensure that everyone can get a breakfast and lunch. The decision to cut the education maintenance allowance and not replace it was one of the worst pieces of vandalism by the previous Government. That is why I welcome the lowering of the voting age in the Representation of the People Bill, giving young people a stake and the power to use their vote to demand better. I also welcome new protections from foreign interference, because I somehow doubt that a Thailand-based crypto billionaire had the interests of young people in Bishop Auckland at heart when he chose to give £5 million—and more—to Reform UK. I welcome the measures and ambitions outlined in the King’s Speech. I welcome the emphasis on growth and opportunity, the focus on rebuilding Britain’s industrial capacity, and the Government’s commitment to reforming skills provision and strengthening pathways into work. For too long Britain has operated with an outdated hierarchy of success—one that implied that the only prestigious route was academic. That thinking has held our country back. There should be no hierarchy of esteem between academic and vocational education, and a young person training to become an engineer, a care worker, a builder, a digital technician or a heat-pump installer contributes every bit as much to Britain’s future as someone sitting in a university lecture hall. Apprenticeships done properly remain one of the greatest engines of social mobility that the country has ever created. They provide not just qualifications but wages, confidence, structure, dignity and purpose. I welcome the move towards a more flexible growth and skills levy, new foundation apprenticeships, and the Government’s efforts to make it easier for small businesses to take on young apprentices again. The Association of Colleges, however, has rightly warned that, while additional in-year growth funding is welcome, colleges remain under intense financial pressure after years of rising student numbers, inflationary costs and workforce shortages. Colleges are being asked to deliver more students with more technical pathways, more specialist provision and more support for vulnerable learners, often without the long-term funding that they need to plan sustainably. If we ask FE colleges to become the backbone of Britain’s growth strategy, we must give them the resources to deliver. FE colleges are not merely peripheral institutions; they are core economic infrastructure. They train the people who will deliver the ambitions that we set out in the King’s Speech. In places such as Bishop Auckland, they are institutions of hope, aspiration and opportunity.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for T-levels. I thank Harrison Willmott, a sixth-form student and work experience student, who helped research some of the figures for my speech today. He is sitting in the Gallery. I also welcome today’s positive growth figures—the highest quarterly growth in the G7 and the highest real-terms growth in over four years, as well as falling unemployment. However, there are moments in a nation when a challenge becomes so large and so deeply rooted that it ceases to be merely a policy problem and becomes a test of national purpose. I believe that is where Britain now stands on work, skills and opportunity, because across our country, but particularly in communities such as mine in Bishop Auckland, a generation of young people are growing up under pressures that no previous generation quite faced in the same combination. Those young people have lived through covid and a youth mental health crisis, and they face rising housing insecurity, economic anxiety and a labour market that is changing faster than institutions have adapted. One in seven 16 to 24-year-olds in Bishop Auckland are not in education, employment or training. I recently visited Dene Valley and Shildon, a deprived part of my constituency that has the highest child poverty rate in County Durham. I met locals to listen to their views about regeneration, and senior citizens with long memories told me stories about a time when these villages were buzzing, with their own swimming baths and the best sprung dance floor in the area. It was a time when people could leave school, and go straight into apprenticeships in the mines, railways or brickworks. It was hard graft, but there was secure work and dignity. The closure of the pits, the wagon works and other industries left deep scars on our community and, in some cases, intergenerational poverty. I know the effect on a community of seeing thousands of jobs disappear, which is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to British Steel in the King’s Speech. I thank the Government for the work done to save 700 jobs at Hitachi in nearby Newton Aycliffe, and I also thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for leading that campaign. Britain’s NEET rate is significantly higher than in many comparable economies, and the consequences are not temporary. Research has shown that prolonged youth unemployment scars earnings, confidence and opportunities for decades. A young person disconnected from work at 19 can still feel the effects in middle age. This is not simply an economic failure; it is a moral failure. If we do not act now, we risk writing off the potential of an entire generation precisely at the moment that Britain needs their talents the most. When they were in government, the Conservatives hollowed out the very systems that help young people find their place, and they talked endlessly about opportunity while cutting away at the ladders that create it. Ensuring good jobs for our people is a fundamental duty for everyone in this place, so I welcome the ambition set out in the King’s Speech that will help to sustain and create new industries in the north-east, strengthening Britain’s energy security, expanding infrastructure, supporting the defence industries, accelerating the building of social and affordable homes, and creating opportunities through growth. When I look across the area that I am so privileged to represent, I see real opportunities: new industry around lithium in Weardale; geothermal energy and other types of renewable power to get us off the fossil fuels rollercoaster, creating energy that we build and keep, and creating local jobs; the potential for house building and regeneration in the Dene Valley area; defence jobs, with fantastic employers such as Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope, PGP and Teescraft already in the area, so we can become an eco-centre for the defence industry; new jobs in healthcare; and jobs for a generation of trained counsellors, educational psychologists, and speech and language therapists who will be in our schools thanks to this Government’s commitment to special educational needs. The King’s Speech also contained plans to strengthen our relationship with Europe. That matters, because it is not all good news. We have lost jobs in my community in Barnard Castle. Pharmaceutical jobs moved to Austria, on the other side of the boundary. We need to be honest: too many businesses I speak to tell me they struggle to find the skills they need in the workforce. We cannot deliver the defence manufacturing jobs without technicians, fabricators, engineers and advanced manufacturing apprenticeships. We cannot deliver clean power and energy resilience without electricians, retrofit specialists, geothermal engineers, heat network installers and construction workers. We cannot build the homes this country needs without skilled tradespeople. We cannot compete in a world transformed by AI and advanced technology if millions of young Britons are left without the skills or confidence to participate in the future economy. The great challenge of this decade is not whether good, honest work will exist; it is whether Britain will equip its people to do it. That requires us to rebuild the skills pipeline in Britain that has been neglected for too long. The answer is strengthening partnerships between FE colleges and local businesses.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my absolute delight at the education for all Bill included in the King’s Speech. I intend to speak in the debate on that Bill when the time comes. I also thank the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State for what I thought was a model of how to engage with charities and parents, as well as with Back-Bench MPs, on that difficult but important piece of legislation. I think everybody across the House will welcome that Bill as they see the battleground over education, health and care plans coming to an end, and the proper resources that children need to thrive entering those schools. I will finish where I started, by saying that it is not a question of whether we can afford to create opportunity; the fact is that we cannot afford not to do so. The future of our country depends on it.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Lady is saying—we have exactly the same challenges in my rural community, where people cannot get to job interviews or to jobs—but we passed the Bus Services Act 2025 in the last Session.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly do. It is this Labour Government and it is getting people off NHS waiting lists and back into work. However, it is not for me to answer the questions; my intervention was simply to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the question that was put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and which she did not really answer. This broken system that she described as “Benefits Street” is a system that the Conservatives created. Why, in 14 years, did they do nothing about it? It is easy to create political anger, rather than to have dealt with it, and that is why this Government are now dealing with the Conservatives’ mess?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It would be interesting to be reminded of how the right hon. Member voted on Andrew Lansley’s reforms of the NHS, many of which are still creating problems in our NHS today.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  As others have said, it is important that when we speak in this place we reflect the feelings of those we represent, and I think that if they see anything at all in all of this, they will be thinking about Epstein’s victims. As someone who knows more about sexual abuse than I would like to, I want to be absolutely clear, before I make any other remarks, that I think that it was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson, even knowing what the Prime Minister knew at the time. But I will also say this: the Prime Minister has acknowledged as much. He has acknowledged it at the Dispatch Box, he has acknowledged it to the parliamentary Labour party and he has acknowledged it to Epstein’s victims, who he has apologised to on multiple occasions. I speak with ordinary people, like my auntie who voted for Brexit and did not vote Labour at the last election. She told me that she thinks the public are sick and tired of hearing about this, because we are not addressing the bread-and-butter issues of their lives. None the less, this is the motion before the House today. I also want to say a word about pressure. Many people have alluded to this being a whipped vote. In many ways, I wish it was not, because it would not change the way that I will vote. I intend to vote against the motion before us, and I would do so based on my conscience and how I read this situation. I am a Back Bencher with nothing to lose and nothing greatly to gain from loyalty to the Government. I have looked at the merits of the case, and I think it is really important that we have a robust system of standards in this place, and that we do not make a mockery of it. When we have politically motivated charges such as those that have been brought today, it risks making a mockery of the Privileges Committee and the process.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I will address that point in just a moment. First, let us address the point about process. Sir Chris Wormald’s letter to the Prime Minister said: “The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.” Sir Olly Robbins confirmed that he did not tell the Prime Minister that Mandelson had failed the vetting process, and said: “You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV, other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.” Cat Little, who also appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “My view is that due process was followed...because the process as I’ve outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV make a recommendation, and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV.” All the evidence so far is certainly corroborating that view.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The Whips have not told me very much, but I will address the right hon. Gentleman’s question as I make progress in my speech and he will see why I have drawn my conclusions. The question is this: has the Prime Minister deliberately or recklessly misled the House, sufficient to make a referral to the Privileges Committee? As I said a moment ago, it is important that we treat that question properly, because we should not treat the Committee lightly; we should not mock it. If we made political referrals every time a Member said anything where someone could twist or misconstrue their words, we would always be making referrals. It seems to me, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that there are two principal claims. One is regarding whether due process was followed; the other is regarding pressure. I have been watching the evidence sessions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we all have, and I have been listening carefully. We are still awaiting many of the documents, including more than 300 that have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are waiting to see what those documents say, but nothing that has come out so far has done anything other than corroborate what the Prime Minister has told us.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen no evidence and, indeed, Sir Olly Robbins made it quite clear that he did not feel pressure to change his mind, that pressure was exerted on him with regard to the decision that he made. There was pressure exerted to make a decision. That is just part and parcel of the normal running of government, particularly when working to a timeline. Let me quote him: “I walked into a situation” where there was a “strong expectation—you will have seen the papers, released…under the Humble Address—coming from No. 10, that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible, the very first formal communication…to my predecessor from the No. 10 private office being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before inauguration.” That does not imply that there was some pressure to appoint him against the evidence that came forward.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to answer that point— [ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members stop chuntering, they will hear the answer, which is no, not at all. It is my personal view, although I am not an expert in these things, that I probably would have appointed an ambassador. I have said I thought the appointment of Peter Mandelson was wrong. I would have probably appointed an ambassador to the United States or left her in post, but that is immaterial to the point I am making. The point I am making is that No. 10 clearly felt time pressure to get somebody in post. There is a difference between feeling a pressure to conclude a process quickly and pressure being exerted on someone to change the decision. If we listen to what Sir Olly Robbins actually said, we will see that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take any more interventions, because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking at her watch. The allegation simply has not been substantiated. There is pressure going on at the moment: documents are being released under the Humble Address and evidence is being given before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to wonder why the Opposition have not waited until that process has been concluded before writing to the Speaker requesting this motion. I want to address a couple more points quickly, and I will not take any more interventions. I acknowledge that there are Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some Opposition Members, who have suggested that they are so confident that the Prime Minister has no case to answer that he should just refer himself to the Committee to prove it. I do not think that that is the way we should be using the Committee’s time. The onus is on this place to decide whether any evidence has yet come forward that suggests that there is a case to answer, and I do not think that anybody so far has shown any. People have also referenced the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I remind the House that at the point he was referred to the Privileges Committee, it was not a case of what happened in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office beyond the Prime Minister’s knowledge. This was a case of him saying, “There were no parties in Downing Street,” of him then appearing photographed at parties, and there being a Metropolitan police investigation and a criminal conviction. I am simply not going to indulge the Opposition in their games. We all know what this is about. We all know that somewhere in Conservative headquarters right now, graphs are being prepared with our faces on them to try to play some narrative to our voters that we are all part of some big cover-up. When we behave like this, it does a disservice to all of us and to this place, and I am simply not going to play their games today.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member knows that I have great affection for her, so I am disappointed in the way she has just made that point. In Sir Olly Robbins’s testimony, he said that No. 10 was repeatedly asking, “Has the vetting been completed?” That is inconsistent with the idea that No. 10 regarded the vetting as immaterial to its decision—quite the opposite. It demonstrates to me a No. 10 that felt that this was an important process that had to be followed. There was of course pressure to complete it quickly, but that does not mean that there was pressure to change the outcome. I am sorry but until somebody shows otherwise through evidence, there is no reason we should believe that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady may be inadvertently misquoting the Prime Minister, but if I am wrong, I invite her to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said about pressure to expedite the process. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure to change the decision, not expedite the process.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about selective quoting. I am sure that she would not want to selectively quote Sir Olly Robbins herself, so could she tell us what the rest of that quote was? When he talked about pressure, was he talking about pressure to deliver a decision in time for President Trump’s inauguration, or was he saying that he felt pressure to materially change what the decision would be? That is quite an important distinction, is it not?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I believe so, Mr Speaker.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a moment. I want to address my colleague’s question about pressure. Clearly there are different types of pressure that can be exerted, and Sir Olly Robbins was clearly talking about the pressure to reach a decision quickly— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members all know what was going on in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. We had had a change in Government in the United States. We had no trade deal with the United States, thanks to the legacy that the Conservatives left us. We had a difficult situation that meant that we needed a capable ambassador in post before President Trump’s inauguration.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation. I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?