Steve Yemm MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many hon. Members, from all parties, remain incredibly frustrated by Capita’s performance and the ongoing failures relating to its administration of the civil service pension scheme. My office is dealing with many cases on behalf of constituents in Mansfield who are struggling to access their pensions in a timely manner, and I am sure other Members are dealing with similar cases. The delays are now simply beyond acceptable. Will the Leader of the House ask ministerial colleagues to provide the House with an urgent update?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing a very important debate. The safety of the Jewish community is not a marginal issue. It goes absolutely to the heart of the kind of country that we want to be. British Jews should be able to go to synagogue, send their children to school, travel, work and live openly as Jews without fear, intimidation or abuse. I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust, the police, synagogue security volunteers and Jewish schools and community organisations for their vital work, but it should trouble every one of us that such work is so necessary. The scale of the challenge is clear. CST recorded almost 2,000 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second highest total ever reported in the first six months of a year. That is not a short-term spike that has simply passed; it is a sustained change in the atmosphere faced by Jewish communities. This is not about asking for special treatment, but about the basic right to live without being held collectively responsible for events that happen around the world. No child should ever grow up thinking that security guards outside their school are a fact of life, yet for many Jewish children that is exactly what normality looks like right now. The Community Security Trust recorded almost 200 antisemitic incidents affecting schools in the first half of this year, the highest January-to-June total that it has recorded. Jewish children should not have to pass security guards on their way to school as if it were normal. Young people should never have to choose between their safety and being openly Jewish, and Jewish students should not have to change their routes across campus or hide parts of who they are. The Government must continue to support the security of Jewish communal life. However, as other Members have said, the answer cannot simply be higher fences and more guards. We must deal with the hatred that makes those fences necessary. That requires serious work on online radicalisation, proper enforcement against antisemitism in schools and universities, and a social cohesion strategy that is prepared to confront hard truths. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those issues. Jewish citizens are asking for what every citizen in the UK should rightly expect: the right to live, worship, study and contribute openly and safely. That is the absolute minimum that a decent society must guarantee for us all.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Rough Sleeping · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle rough sleeping.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Rough Sleeping · Hansard source

  More

  I recently wrote praising the determination of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to make tackling rough sleeping a priority, and I highlighted how the Old Eight Bells in Mansfield was turned from a derelict building into a lifeline for adults who need supported housing, bringing new activity into our town centre. Does the Minister agree that if that approach were backed in our fight to end rough sleeping, it would be a significant helping hand?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  We now prohibit commercial arrangements in the UK, yet we allow intended parents to travel overseas to exploit that type of arrangement. I am interested to know whether the shadow Minister thinks that that is a morally coherent position, and whether we should be looking at the rights of UK citizens to exploit commercial surrogacy overseas.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend neglected to mention the consent of the mother in his list. Does he agree that that is also of paramount importance?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I will begin by recognising the very understandable motivation behind this petition. People who pursue surrogacy do so because they desperately want a family, and nobody should doubt the love that intended parents have for the children they raise. However, I cannot support the change proposed by the petition. The question before us is not whether intended parents are real parents, nor whether they should ultimately receive legal recognition; the question is whether the woman who has carried and given birth to a child should lose her legal status as that child’s mother from the moment of birth. I do not believe that she should. In our society, some things should never be reduced to questions of contract, individual choice or intention, and motherhood is certainly one of them. Pregnancy cannot simply be a service provided by one person for another, a woman’s body cannot merely be the means by which someone else’s parental intentions are fulfilled and the relationship created through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth cannot be written off because an agreement was reached beforehand. At present, our law recognises that reality: the woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the legal mother. Intended parents can subsequently acquire legal parenthood through a parental order, but crucially, that process cannot normally begin until six weeks after the birth and requires the mother’s consent. Some describe that as outdated and difficult bureaucracy, but I describe it as a safeguard. Before conception, we cannot know with certainty how a woman will feel after pregnancy, childbirth and holding the baby whom she carried for the first time. Consent matters enormously, but genuine consent must include one having the ability to change one’s mind when the reality is fundamentally different from what could have been understood beforehand. Consent given before pregnancy cannot simply become irrevocable after childbirth. Another important question is that of independent oversight. Parental orders allow the courts to consider the circumstances of the arrangement, require the mother’s consent and provide for CAFCASS involvement. That protection becomes particularly important in the international dimension of surrogacy, which other Members have mentioned. In the first 11 months of 2025, 139 parental order applications were made for babies born through surrogacy in the UK, compared with 357 for babies born through surrogacy abroad. Therefore, we should think carefully before weakening the safeguards in our law. If parental orders take too long, let us consider making them quicker, and if intended parents face practical difficulties, let us try to address them. We can make the system work better without changing the principle at its heart. Family, motherhood and childhood cannot be understood through the language of intention and contract, and it is particularly important that the law continues to recognise the reality of motherhood at the moment of birth. A woman who has carried and given birth to a child should not find that her legal relationship with that child has already been extinguished. I cannot support automatically recognising intended parents as the legal parents from birth. The six-week period after birth, the mother’s consent and independent judicial oversight are not antiquated obstacles to modern families, but protections for women and children—important safeguards that I believe are worth keeping.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing first place in the ballot and, more importantly, on choosing to use that valuable opportunity to introduce this Bill. There are many subjects that a Member fortunate enough to come first in the ballot might choose. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen one that is both profoundly important and—too often, I think—absent from our political debate: the health and development of babies, the wellbeing of their parents and carers, and the support available to families during pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. That is why I am so pleased to support the Bill. I do so not only as the Member of Parliament for Mansfield but as a father and a grandfather. When I think about the matters before us, I think about my own grandchildren, Samuel, Joseph, Rosa and Martha—and indeed those grandchildren in our family who are yet to be born. I think about the families into which they were born, the love and care that surround them and the extraordinary speed with which I have seen them begin to develop a personality, to form relationships and to make sense of the world. Inevitably, that makes this debate personal, but it should be personal for all of us, because every Member of the House represents thousands of families who want exactly the same thing for their children and grandchildren: for them to be safe, healthy, loved and given the best possible start in life. The wellbeing of babies should therefore not be a party political matter. As many hon. Members have alluded to, babies do not comment on my Facebook posts or attempt to come to my surgery, yet the decisions we take in this House shape the circumstances in which those children begin their lives. That is why the Bill matters so much. The 1,001 days between conception and a child’s second birthday are not simply a preliminary period before the more important business of education begins. It is the period in which the foundations of a child’s physical health, emotional security and ability to form relationships, develop language and develop future capacity to learn are all being laid. A child does not suddenly acquire life chances when they first walk through the school gates; by that point, a great deal has already happened. Of course, we should never suggest that the course of a child’s life has been irreversibly decided before the age of two. Children are resilient, families overcome extraordinary difficulty, and good schools, good public services and strong communities can transform lives. However, we should recognise what the evidence and the daily experience of families tell us. Early relationships, responsive care, good nutrition, physical safety and the emotional wellbeing of parents all matter enormously, and when a family needs help, the earlier that help is available, the more effective it is likely to be. We talk a great deal in this place about prevention—about preventing ill health, family breakdown, or children falling behind at school—but prevention requires us to act before a difficulty becomes a crisis, and to invest political attention in people whose needs are not always visible or vocal. That is the central strength of this Bill. It does not attempt to invent an entirely new structure or prescribe from Westminster how every service in every community should operate; instead, it seeks to place a stronger and more enduring statutory foundation beneath the support that families already need and, in some places, already receive. Supporting families does not mean replacing them—parents are the first and most important people in a child’s life. Our role, and the role of government, is not to take over the ordinary work of raising children; it is to create all of the conditions in which families can fulfil those responsibilities. As such, the best services work alongside families. They respect parents’ knowledge of their own children, offer reliable advice, identify risks, and help parents to develop confidence. That is also why services need to be welcoming and non-stigmatising. If support is associated only with crisis, parents may delay asking for help because they fear judgment. The Government’s Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme provides an important basis on which to build. The commitment of £500 million between this year and 2029, the expansion of Best Start family hubs across every upper-tier local authority, and the enhanced healthy babies support in areas of high deprivation all demonstrate that the Government understand the importance of this period. All Labour Members should be proud of the legacy of Sure Start. At its best, Sure Start understood that children’s wellbeing could not be separated neatly into health, education, family circumstances and so forth. It brought support into communities and created places where parents could seek assistance without stigma. My own daughter described Sure Start centres in Mansfield as “the best place in the universe”, so we should learn from the best of Sure Start, the family hubs programme, and the experience of Start for Life. Families are more interested in whether doors are open, the staff are present and help is effective than they are in thinking about the organisational model. When I consider this Bill, I naturally think about my own family, but I also think about the generations of children in Mansfield and across the country whose names we do not yet know. If we believe that every child should have the opportunity to flourish, our commitment cannot begin at nursery or primary school; it must begin at the beginning. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West again, and hope that Members across the House will allow the Bill to proceed without dividing, work constructively on its detail in Committee, and give support for babies and their families—the enduring foundation that they deserve and that this Bill can help to provide. I commend the Bill to the House.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields · Hansard source

  More

  A former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has recently argued that the future of the North sea is not about a choice between oil and gas and renewables, but about protecting jobs as workers transition into the industries of the future. Does the Minister agree that the reason projects like Jackdaw and Rosebank matter so much is that they provide jobs, investment, skills and further tax revenues today, and that a just transition has to protect those workers and communities, rather than leaving them behind?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor may know that I have written to him about my constituent William Payne, whose girlfriend Abigail Eggleston was killed by Liam Bowes, who was sentenced to 12 years for causing death by dangerous driving. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to exclude that offence from the new release arrangements. Is the Lord Chancellor able to confirm that, as a result, Mr Bowes’ custodial release point will remain at two thirds of his sentence, rather than being brought forward to one half, and will he ensure that my constituent receives formal confirmation of that?