Steve Yemm MP: speeches 2026

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?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  I am encouraged to hear about the experience that my hon. Friend has recounted, but does he share my concern that Jewish students often have limited confidence in universities’ complaints procedures? Quite frequently, reports of antisemitism are dealt with rather slowly or without any form of consequence.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  I occasionally meet Jewish students at the University of Nottingham for dinner on a Friday evening, hosted by Chabad. Those students talk about being proud of their faith, but they frequently question whether they can be openly Jewish on campus. Does the hon. Member agree that no student should ever feel that they have to hide their identity on a university campus?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s publication of Donna Ockenden’s report has laid bare absolutely appalling and systemic failures in maternity services in Nottinghamshire, with thousands of families suffering avoidable harm, and in many cases feeling ignored, dismissed or let down by the very institutions that were put in place to protect them. The report identifies profound failures of leadership, governance and accountability, and an inability to learn from mistakes. Given the scale of the failings and the repeated concerns raised in previous maternity reviews, is it now time for the Government to establish a full, judge-led, statutory public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, and examine whether wider NHS and regulatory failures have allowed these tragedies to occur over such a prolonged period?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Furniss. In my contribution, I neglected to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the donations that were made by Unite and GMB to my election campaign. I would like to put that on the record.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I welcome this debate because it goes to the heart of two vital national priorities: tackling climate change and maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies. I support the transition to a low-carbon economy. The science is clear and the need to decarbonise and adapt is urgent, but if we are serious about delivering a just transition—as is the case with the electric vehicle mandate, which I have spoken about at length—we must be equally serious about protecting the workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on the North sea. Thousands of workers right across the UK are employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas sector. When I talk to those workers, they are not opposed to change; they are asking a very reasonable question: what are the equivalent jobs, with equivalent pay, conditions and security, that are supposed to replace those that are being lost? At present, I do not hear a convincing answer, while, at the same time, the UK becomes more reliant on imported oil and gas. That uncertainty does not reduce demand; it simply exports jobs, economic activity and tax revenues. In an increasingly unstable world, energy security matters. It is hugely important, and recent international events have shown just how vulnerable global energy markets can be. We should be cautious about increasing our dependence on imports from countries that may have lower environmental and labour standards. That is why projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should be considered in the contexts of jobs, industrial capacity and energy resilience alongside our climate commitments. The choice should not be between net zero and good jobs; the challenge for Government is to deliver on both of those things. That requires a clear industrial strategy, investment in new industries, a “North sea 2” vision, strong domestic supply chains and genuine job-to-job pathways for workers affected by the transition. A just transition cannot mean managed decline; it has to be planned, funded and delivered in partnership with workers and trade unions such as Unite and GMB, which have been doing great work representing their members. I urge the Government to ensure that energy security and decarbonisation go hand in hand and to demonstrate clearly how North sea workers and their communities can be protected as we make the transition to a cleaner energy future.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. We live in an age in which a handful of technology companies shape how we communicate, shop, work and receive news, and increasingly how the Government deliver public services. There is no question but that technology has brought enormous benefits to us. It has enabled new businesses, accelerated scientific discovery and created opportunities that previous generations could not imagine, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask a fundamental question: who is shaping whom? Is technology serving society or is society being reshaped to serve the interests of technology companies? Today, a small number of global technology corporations possess unprecedented economic power to influence markets. Their algorithms shape public debate and their infrastructure underpins our essential services. That concentration of power raises important questions about sovereignty. The Government are elected by the British people and this Parliament makes laws, yet too often we find ourselves adapting public policy to the priorities of global firms, rather than expecting those firms to adapt to the rules of our society. The rise of artificial intelligence makes those questions even more urgent. AI has extraordinary potential in healthcare, education, public administration and so forth, but it should raise concerns about issues such as transparency and accountability, which affect employment and the concentration of power. That means that there is a need for stronger competition policy when markets become overly concentrated. It means that public data is used in the public interest. It means protecting our citizens from harmful online environments. It also means supporting British innovation so that the next generation of technological advance creates prosperity across our country, rather than a dependence on overseas monopolies. Britain should choose democracy, accountability and innovation in the service of society. That is the task before us. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. It is a debate that this House must not shirk.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I recently joined a class of year 5 pupils from St Peter’s school in my constituency on a visit to the National Holocaust Museum in Laxton. I saw at first hand that places such as that are vital to ensuring that young people absorb lessons about the Holocaust. Will the Minister therefore commit to visiting that museum with me and a local school?

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his understanding of these issues—which is a deep understanding—and his diligence in considering them. I also thank him for meeting me, along with the trustees of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. I hope the Minister will be around for a significant period of time to see this through at the Budget. I think it is very important that he remains in his place.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly hear the same thing in Mansfield. Residents raise concerns with me when they see businesses that seem to operate without customers but somehow remain open and trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that, where there is evidence of that type of activity, the public are right to expect rapid enforcement of the law?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Road Maintenance Funding: Nottinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered funding for road maintenance in Nottinghamshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The issue of the condition of roads across my constituency is raised with me more than almost any other. Since becoming an MP, I have been contacted by hundreds of residents about potholes, crumbling surfaces and roads that have been left to deteriorate for far too long. Time and again the message from my constituents is the same: our roads are simply not good enough. In Mansfield, potholes are no longer just a nuisance; they are becoming local landmarks. Some residents tell me that they no longer bother trying to avoid them. They simply recognise them, almost like old friends on the school run or the commute. That may raise a smile, but behind that humour is a much more serious reality, because potholes are not just harmless inconveniences—they are hazards that damage vehicles. They also increase costs for families, sometimes by hundreds and even thousands of pounds. In some cases, they put human safety at risk—and not just of injury but sometimes death, and there are examples of that in my constituency. I have also heard from constituents about significant damage to tyres, which leaves people stranded late at night. In an email typical of the many that I have received, one resident described being left alone in Mansfield in the early hours after a punctured tyre, waiting until 5 am for recovery and assistance, and feeling vulnerable and unsafe. Another constituent wrote to me about her local estate, where a single pothole on her street is almost impossible to avoid. It has caused serious vehicle damage. She explained that she no longer reports issues to Nottinghamshire county council, the highway authority, because she has no confidence that it will lead to meaningful change. Instead, she sees the same pattern repeated: small temporary patches of tarmac that break down again after a very short period, or potholes simply marked with spray paint and left for weeks. The sense of resignation is perhaps the most frustrating part of all, and is something that I have heard many times. Roads are patched rather than properly repaired, problems are identified but not resolved, and residents feel that they are paying more and more in council tax only to receive less in return. Let us be clear that this is not just about inconvenience. Roads are essential infrastructure that people rely on to take their children to school, access healthcare and get to work. When they are in such a condition, there is a direct impact on daily life and our local economy. It is not acceptable that residents should be left facing repair bills, avoidable damage and safety risks because our roads have not been maintained properly. How did we get into this situation? The basic issue is quite simple: roads do not last indefinitely without planned maintenance. They require resurfacing at regular intervals, yet that cycle has been allowed to slip far beyond what is sustainable. The Asphalt Industry Alliance reports that roads in England are now resurfaced on average every 39 years for principal roads, 60 years for B and C roads, and sometimes over 100 years for unclassified roads—far beyond the recommended 10 to 20 years. The gap is not just a technical detail; it is a structural failure. It means roads are being allowed to deteriorate until they break down completely, leading to expensive and reactive repairs. Once that happens, the cost spiral is immediate. Patching potholes becomes more expensive than prevention, and each intervention lasts less time. We are, therefore, spending more for worse outcomes. Across the country, including in Nottinghamshire, that has created a repeating cycle of deterioration followed by temporary patching, further breakdown and repeat intervention: a managed decline that never resolves the underlying issues. Nationally, that has built up a substantial backlog, with independent estimates placing the cost of restoring local roads to proper condition at many billions of pounds, and large parts of the network close to the end of their structural life. In plain terms, we are dealing with not just potholes but the accumulated consequence of years of deferred maintenance and under-investment—not the result of a single bad winter or short-term disruption. Under the Conservative Government from 2010, central Government funding for local authorities was significantly reduced, particularly during the Cameron and Osborne years of 2010 to 2015. We all saw the impact of that on our local councils across various services. Capital expenditure on local road maintenance in Nottinghamshire fell from £16.6 million in 2011 to just £12 million by the time Boris Johnson became Prime Minister in 2019. Revenue expenditure on local highway maintenance, funded through council tax receipts and business rates, remained below 2010 levels in every subsequent year, and in some years reduced by more than 50%. In the final five years of Conservative Government, some additional and welcome funding was provided but, after taking inflation into account, the real-terms cumulative loss in funding in Nottinghamshire alone over those 14 years amounted to tens of millions. Furthermore, because highways maintenance is not ringfenced, rising pressures from other areas forced local authorities to divert their limited resources to meet their obligations elsewhere, further weakening any capacity for preventive maintenance. A double pressure emerged: increasing demand on council budgets and a road network requiring more investment just as preventive maintenance was squeezed. The result, after years of Conservative under-investment, is a road network in Nottinghamshire that is increasingly worn out, more expensive to repair and reliant on temporary fixes instead of lasting solutions. That responsibility does not stop at the national level. My residents and others across Nottinghamshire will remember when our county council was led by the Conservatives under my predecessor, Ben Bradley, who was simultaneously leader of Nottinghamshire county council and Conservative MP for Mansfield. As council leader, he failed to reverse the deterioration of local roads or secure the additional funding needed, despite being in a prime position to do so. It is against that backdrop that the Labour Government have had to decide what happens next: whether we continue to manage decline or we finally move to a system where repair and maintenance of roads are done properly. Therefore, I am pleased that the Government have chosen the path of investment in our roads in Nottinghamshire, instead of the path of further deterioration and decline. I welcome the fact that the Labour Government recently set out a record £7.3 billion national multi-year settlement for local road maintenance across the country over the next four years. That is not just a headline figure; it is long-term and guaranteed funding that gives councils such as mine in Nottinghamshire the ability to plan properly, move away from crisis management and invest in proper preventive maintenance. That is on top of the Government’s investment of £1.6 billion for this financial year, which is a £500 million increase compared with the last financial year. This is real year-on-year growth, rather than managed decline. Under the previous system, funding for 2024-25 in Nottinghamshire stood at just £18.6 million. I repeat that figure for emphasis—£18.6 million. However, under this Labour Government, who have worked with the East Midlands combined county authority and Mayor Claire Ward, that figure has risen to £44.7 million in 2025-26, including £15.2 million of additional mayoral investment. It will rise again to £46.9 million in 2026-27, including £17.4 million from the mayor. That is tens of millions of pounds of additional funding in Nottinghamshire to help fix our roads. The contrast with what came before could not be clearer: investment under Labour, and decline under the Conservatives. I therefore place on record my thanks to Mayor Claire Ward and the Minister for the leadership they have shown. Partnership between central Government and regional leadership is exactly how to fix long-standing problems properly, because for years our councils were asked to do more for less. As mentioned earlier, preventive maintenance was completely squeezed, long-term planning was undermined and, as a 2019 Transport Committee report made clear, the system was “fragmented”, “reactive” and failed to deliver the certainty needed to maintain roads properly. Recommendations that were made clearly at the time were not acted on by the previous Government. Labour investment means that Nottinghamshire county council has both the resources and the responsibility to deliver, and what matters now to my constituents in Mansfield and to people across Nottinghamshire is delivery. I accept that there is a major backlog of repairs and that not every road will be fixed overnight. However, with these record funding settlements, Nottinghamshire county council cannot claim that it is not able to get this done due to a lack of funds. The money is coming in, I am glad to say; the question now is whether it can be used effectively at local level. We are investing more than ever before, we are changing a system that has failed for too long, and we are giving councils the tools they need to succeed. However, I also make it clear that this funding must translate into visible improvements on the ground, because residents in Mansfield do not measure success in budget lines or policy papers. They measure it by whether they can drive to work without damaging their car, whether parents can safely take their children to school and whether their roads are finally fit for purpose. That is the standard that I believe the Labour Government are now setting, and I will continue to hold the council to account for making sure it is met.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Brain cancer is one of the most devastating diseases facing families across our country, and it kills more people under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Ellen. Her husband Jason, an Army veteran from Mansfield and a father of two, was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Ellen told me that when they received the diagnosis, their “world completely fell apart”. Since then Jason has relied on private treatment, including treatment overseas, at a significant cost to the family, and has struggled to access clinical trials despite wanting to take part in them. Their experience raises an important question: are we doing enough to ensure that brain tumour patients can access every possible treatment opportunity? I would welcome an update from the Minister on what can be done to improve access to clinical trials for brain tumour patients. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Brain Tumour Research centre of excellence at the University of Nottingham; through advanced imaging, genomics and innovative new approaches, it is helping to drive progress in the fight against this terrible disease. For families like Jason’s and Ellen’s, this is not an abstract policy issue, but a daily reality. We owe it to them and to all those affected by brain cancer to support research, improve diagnosis and give this disease the urgency it deserves.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. Too many towns, such as Mansfield in my constituency, have been left behind when it comes to transport infrastructure. We have seen bus routes cut back, unreliable services become the norm and communities increasingly isolated, and it has real economic and social consequences. I believe the action already taken by the Labour Government is beginning to turn things around. The Government’s £3 billion investment in buses, alongside the Bus Services Act, represents the biggest reform for buses in a generation. Although buses are vital, rail connectivity is equally important to the future prosperity of towns like Mansfield. My constituency is rightly proud of its railway heritage—we have already heard about the importance of strong local rail services—and I want to speak in support of two rail schemes. First, the Robin Hood line extension running from Shirebrook to Ollerton would reopen former stations, including at Warsop in my constituency, and directly link my residents back into the national rail network, with connections to Mansfield, Nottingham, Worksop and beyond. Secondly, the Maid Marian line would provide an alternative route into Nottingham, easing pressure on existing lines while allowing for expanded services that would better serve Mansfield and Ashfield, including through improved access to Derby. The case for those projects is not simply about transport for transport’s sake; it is about economic growth, regeneration and opportunities for communities that have been overlooked for too long. I hope the Minister will begin to work with regional leaders, local authorities and MPs across the east midlands to help to move both those schemes forward. Let us get Mansfield and neighbouring towns fully back on the map—let us reopen the Maid Marian line and extend the Robin Hood line.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give way, and this will be the final intervention that I take.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Almost 500 people in my Mansfield constituency signed this petition, and many more constituents have written to me expressing their deep concern about child sexual exploitation, grooming gangs and the failure of our institutions to protect vulnerable children in our country. I understand from them why this issue matters so profoundly to the public, and why there is such a strong demand for transparency, accountability and action. Where child sexual exploitation has occurred, including in organised, gang-based offending, the failures of our police forces, councils and safeguarding agencies have had absolutely devastating consequences.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a profoundly important point, which I completely agree with—as might be expected. We must take on those difficult questions and be prepared to follow the evidence, including all those questions on nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Where those factors can be properly recorded and are operationally relevant, we should of course record them. However, that information always has to be treated carefully, interpreted responsibly and understood within the wider safeguarding environment. The data should help protect children; it should not become a substitute for serious safeguarding policy. That is why any approach to statutory data collection must be rooted in thinking about operational safeguarding. It should not be approached in the light of symbolism, political pressure or other types of political correctness. Good data helps public authorities identify children at risk earlier, allocate resources and understand patterns of offending and allows us to intervene so that fewer children are harmed. Ultimately, the debate comes down to trust. People in my Mansfield constituency want confidence again that the institutions that serve them are honest, competent and focused above all else on protecting children. They want consistency in safeguarding, accountability where there are failures and reassurance that no category of abuse is ignored, minimised or politically inconvenient for anyone. I understand the motives behind the petition, which I wholeheartedly support, but I believe that any statutory requirement we make has to be based on evidence, operationally meaningful and genuinely focused on improving child protection, not driven by any type of incomplete narrative. Above all, as other Members have pointed out, our duty in this House is very simple: it is to protect children, learn from past failures and ensure that every form of child sexual abuse is confronted with the seriousness, honesty and resolve that it demands.