Sam Rushworth
MP for Bishop Auckland · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the Minister for that answer. In the area that I represent, we have a problem. NHS dental practices in Shildon and in Bishop Auckland closed in the year before the general election, and recently another practice in West Auckland has been writing to patients to say that it cannot provide NHS care.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my friend the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for the initiative to lead this debate. Although she is not present in the debate, I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is a great campaigner on this issue.”
“The Lobular Moon Shot Project has been successful so far in raising significant funds, which have been used to develop funding proposals for early work. As we have heard, there is an opportunity to fund significant research at Manchester University. I declare an interest as an alumnus of Manchester.”
“When I was elected, Katie asked to see me, and I was delighted to pick up the baton and support my constituent. In fact, this Saturday she is organising a fair and a tabletop sale in her village of Hilton to raise funds for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.”
“It is, however, vital that those funding rounds go ahead and that the funding is made available to meet the need. As we have heard already, the unique aspect of lobular breast cancer is that it is very difficult to discover.”
“Do they look to enjoy all of life’s riches and pleasures? Susan chose to spend it in the service of others, campaigning for the science to be done to develop a cure for lobular breast cancer. She founded the Lobular Moon Shot campaign.”
The complete record
Every one of 471 lines we hold for Sam Rushworth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“I thank the Minister for that answer. In the area that I represent, we have a problem. NHS dental practices in Shildon and in Bishop Auckland closed in the year before the general election, and recently another practice in West Auckland has been writing to patients to say that it cannot provide NHS care. While I respect and really appreciate the work the Government have done on emergency dental treatments, for primary care dentistry it is still simply not good enough. I know that the Minister knows that as we have talked about it. Will he commit to continuing reform of the contract at pace and recognise that we need to better fund NHS dentistry? Will he or his officials meet me to discuss what we can do to help the affected patients in my constituency?”
“I was privileged to meet Professor Rob Clarke from Manchester and hear about his work. I urge the Minister to take up this issue. Two years on since I was elected, and three or four years on from when I first heard about this campaign, progress has been made, but it is too slow. So many people are in situations that I cannot even imagine, and they are giving their time to campaign for something so important, not even necessarily for themselves, but for the generations that come after them. I implore the Government to listen to their calls and to do what we can to make sure that the correct funding pools are available so that we can, once and for all, get this research done and answer their pleas.”
“It is, however, vital that those funding rounds go ahead and that the funding is made available to meet the need. As we have heard already, the unique aspect of lobular breast cancer is that it is very difficult to discover. It often goes undetected, and only 28% of cases are detected at stage one, compared with 38% of non-lobular breast cancers. There are 8,000 cases a year. The campaign is calling for the discovery science to be done. I appreciate that the Minister today is answering on behalf of the Department for Health and Social Care, but we also need engagement with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, because we need bespoke funding pools from UK Research and Innovation that universities such as Manchester can tap into, to make sure that this vital work gets done.”
“The Lobular Moon Shot Project has been successful so far in raising significant funds, which have been used to develop funding proposals for early work. As we have heard, there is an opportunity to fund significant research at Manchester University. I declare an interest as an alumnus of Manchester. I was privileged to meet the campaigners and the former Health Secretary. That led to a commitment from the Government to issue a highlight notice, which demonstrates the importance that they place on this type of research. I respect the Government’s approach, which has been to say that while we all want to find a cure and there is a need to do the scientific research, it is important to do that through a peer-reviewed process and through competitive funding rounds, because that is what produces the best science.”
“Do they look to enjoy all of life’s riches and pleasures? Susan chose to spend it in the service of others, campaigning for the science to be done to develop a cure for lobular breast cancer. She founded the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Not only is that a campaign for better cancer research funding, but it has also developed a real solidarity among people suffering from this type of cancer. I was privileged to meet Susan and her husband and to learn about the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. As the hon. Member for Horsham said, this was not Susan’s first experience of campaigning. She had success campaigning on aviation safety, in particular on jet fuel and pollution in cabins, a potential cause of her own cancer.”
“When I was elected, Katie asked to see me, and I was delighted to pick up the baton and support my constituent. In fact, this Saturday she is organising a fair and a tabletop sale in her village of Hilton to raise funds for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Through Katie, I was privileged to be introduced to Dr Susan Michaelis and her husband Tristan Loraine. Susan was visiting Katie in her home in County Durham. Through the Lobular Moon Shot Project, I have observed a real sisterhood and solidarity among those who are campaigning together. I have never been in the position of being told that I have terminal cancer, and I find it difficult to imagine, but I can imagine people facing that have a choice about how they spend their remaining years, months and weeks on this Earth. Do they spend it on holiday?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my friend the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for the initiative to lead this debate. Although she is not present in the debate, I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is a great campaigner on this issue. That really demonstrates the cross-party support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I also pay tribute to one of my constituents, Katie Swinburne. She is a mother of three and a very popular local schoolteacher, and she has lobular breast cancer. I first became aware of Katie through Dehenna Davison, who was the MP for Bishop Auckland before me. She did fantastic work supporting Katie as her constituent at the time, and anybody who knew my predecessor knows that she was a formidable single-issue campaigner.”
“My hon. Friend just made an excellent point. We know the research questions that need to be answered. Does he agree that it should not be beyond UKRI to put out a specific call asking people, through a competitive peer review process, to answer those questions?”
“I think there is a space between the two approaches. As wonderful as the Lobular Moon Shot Project is, I fully respect why the Government say that we cannot allow campaign groups to dictate which universities get x millions of pounds for particular projects, and I see the value of there being a peer-reviewed process through a competitive ecosystem. However, there is a space where we can go beyond a highlight notice, whereby the Government could specifically say, “We want research that will answer these specific sets of research questions.” I wonder whether that is something that he could take back to his colleagues for consideration.”
“I declare an interest as the father of a child in receipt of DLA. “Not fit for purpose”, “degrading”, “dehumanising”, “stressful”—the findings of this report reflect what I hear from my constituents. As the Minister moves to the next phase—co-production—will he look at moving to a more personalised, individualised approach? A lot of the review’s findings relate to the application process and this sort of arbitrary gatekeeping around entitlement to money, when all people are asking for is support to live independent, dignified and productive lives.”
“I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s list of demands. I wonder whether he could offer advice, based on the Liberal Democrats’ five years in government, on lessons learned about the NHS contract and its reform.”
“The hon. Member is making an excellent point, and I suspect that the ICB in that situation is finding that its budget is overstretched. On that basis, and in the spirit of not being partisan, would she welcome the investment that this Government are putting into the NHS, which the Liberal Democrats oppose?”
“However, appointments have not always been easy to come by, and often require people to travel across the county. Toothbrushing in schools is massively welcomed by dentists, but less so by teachers. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what can be done to increase the take-up of that programme. The increase in the number of places in dental training schools is welcome, as is progress on the new contract, but many dentists are telling me that the care pathways pay less by the hour, and they are not sure whether they will see the value in them. We must be honest: the number of people with access to NHS primary care, as opposed to emergency appointments, has barely increased in two years.”
“A year later, a month before the general election, another practice sent letters to parents saying that because of “the way in which the NHS contract is funded and managed…and a national shortage… We have…come to the realisation that we are unable to offer…NHS patients the level of care they deserve, and…will no longer be able to provide NHS dental services to child patients from 1st October 2024.” That was the situation that this Government inherited: an underfunded service, a broken contract—the reasons in 2006 for introducing it were sound at the time, but it was broken and needed reform—and the off-rolling of patients. Some things have gone well, and the Government have made progress. It was right to focus on using the underspend for emergency appointments, because people were pulling their own teeth out in the most extreme cases.”
“It is now 9.20 pm, and I have waited all day to be able to say what I am going to say—in three minutes. I cannot give the speech that I wanted to give, but I had to come to speak up on behalf of my constituents, particularly the patients at the West Auckland dental practice who have just been told that they can no longer have NHS dentistry. Let me take the House back to three years ago, when two dental practices closed in our area, one in Shildon and one in Bishop Auckland.”
“It is not a large sum in the grand scheme of things, compared to what could be saved if there were not so many people facing dental emergencies. I want to press for cross-party support on this issue. It is all very well everyone coming here and saying that we need to reform the contract—and we do—but we must face the fact that we need to fund NHS dentistry properly, and it is worth the investment to do so. It is intolerable to keep hearing from the Opposition Benches opposition to the investment that we are putting into the national health service. A moment ago we heard a call for some of that £29 billion to be spent on dentistry, so I say, “Support the £29 billion, and yes, let us fund NHS dentistry.””
“I would like to see that change, and I urge the Minister not to delay the consultation on new proposals on the contract. However, in addition to bringing about reform, we need to return funding levels to where they were in 2010. I recently met dentists from across Durham, including one of the chief negotiators for the British Dental Association. They had warm words to say about the Minister, who they felt was sincere and serious in tackling the problem, but they felt that the resources were simply not enough, and that—as has already been pointed out this evening—£1.5 billion a year is enough to fix NHS dentistry so that everyone in the country could have an NHS dentist. That is the equivalent of a 0.3% increase in national insurance, or £3 per month per taxpayer.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a massive cost of living pressure for people who cannot afford a dentist, and that it would probably be worth our putting in the investment to ensure everyone can have an NHS dentist?”
“I like to buy British, because I know that our farmers have some of the best quality and welfare standards in the world, and I know that my constituents feel the same. However, that is difficult when everything is labelled with Union flags and fake farm names. May I invite the Minister to meet with members of the Labour Rural Research Group to discuss honest food labelling, which we are campaigning for?”
“Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and I look forward to the day that we can remove him as a peer. Even now, he makes a mockery of this process by not releasing his messages. Is there anything that the Government can do to compel Peter Mandelson to provide the information that this House seeks?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”