Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

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 Some describe that as outdated and difficult bureaucracy, but I describe it as a safeguard.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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for opening this debate so thoroughly and thoughtfully. When I read Adam’s petition, I was taken back to the moment that I became a dad. My husband and I fostered and then adopted our children. I remember holding my daughter and son for the first time like it was yesterday. In those moments, there was no question in my mind that I wanted to be their dad, and that is what I am. That is why I was struck by Adam’s description of the moment he and his partner first saw their baby. They became dads in that moment too. However, as my hon. Friend set out, the law does not recognise that reality.

I understand why the current system came about. The rights and autonomy of surrogates and the need to safeguard children should never be brushed aside. Judicial oversight is also important, and reform should not mean removing protections for the surrogate or the child. However, I think we should ask whether the current system gets that balance right.

We now have a situation where almost 1,000 children were born through surrogacy in 2025—roughly double the number a decade earlier. For families who choose surrogacy, the journey to having a child has often already been extraordinarily long. So once that child is born and is being cared for by their intended parents, it is reasonable to ask whether the law should leave their legal parenthood unresolved for months. That has practical implications, which I remember from my time fostering, such as not being able to give consent for something as simple as a vaccination or blood test.

There is a practical point here about our courts. We rightly ask our family courts to deal with cases where there is a genuine dispute, where a child’s welfare needs judicial consideration or where someone’s rights need to be protected. But if a surrogacy arrangement has been properly assessed before the birth, the intended parents have undergone the appropriate checks, the surrogate has had any independent advice and counselling she may need and the necessary safeguards are in place, do we really need to go through a court process to establish legal parenthood?

[Steve Yemm]

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

[Josh Newbury]

Yes, absolutely. I am making the case that where everybody involved—of course, the mother is paramount in that—is happy with the arrangement and wants to go ahead with it, it could happen ahead of time. My personal belief is that there should be a cooling-off period, even if there is a reform, to ensure space for mothers to change their minds. I am making the point that the system could be far more efficient. I am not suggesting that we remove the courts from the process altogether—they should be there when needed—but a properly regulated system could allow straightforward cases to be dealt with before birth while retaining a route to the courts where there is disagreement, a safeguarding concern, consent changes or judicial oversight is required. That would not weaken safeguards; it would allow the courts to focus their time and attention on the cases where their intervention matters most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member always comes to these debates well prepared and well briefed. I think the point he is making, which we can all agree on, is that this is an incredibly complex area that we cannot rush to legislate on, nor should we seek to water down the clear protections that currently exist.

[Steve Yemm]

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.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Steve Yemm Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

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.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have a great deal of respect for him, as he knows, so I very much appreciate him making his suggestions in that manner. Let me add to what he said about Jack and Sarah Hawkins, who I met last week in Nottingham. Their sheer determination to push for accountability and justice is incredibly humbling. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of clinical accountability, which gets to the core of how to drive change in the NHS—as he knows, and as I now know, that is not always possible through central control, or by instructions being sent out from the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England. We must ensure that the entire system is structured in the right way to provide that accountability and to drive change and action, and I will put under careful consideration his suggestion about how that might be achieved.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

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?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of compelling witnesses to give evidence. Although many members of staff contributed towards Donna Ockenden’s review, I found the fact that so many senior leaders did not shocking, and I think it is unacceptable. We will change that by ensuring that the duty of candour, which is due to come in under the Hillsborough law once that is in place, will apply to future maternity reviews, including those taking place in Leeds and Sussex. As I said a few moments ago, there are different views among different families about whether they do or do not want a public inquiry, but I am not taking any options off the table.

Maternity Commissioner

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am pleased that we are having this important debate on an e-petition that secured more than 100 signatures from my constituents in Mansfield. Indeed, after meeting the Nottingham Maternity affected families group on a number of occasions since I became the Member of Parliament for Mansfield, I have become acutely aware of how important these issues are to families in Nottinghamshire and my constituency. Although consideration of a maternity commissioner is important, it must be accompanied by something more fundamental.

Donna Ockenden’s work, both in Nottinghamshire and in other parts of the country, has exposed patterns that we cannot ignore: families not listened to, concerns frequently dismissed and failures repeated over many years. What has been most troubling is not just what went wrong in one place, in Nottinghamshire, but how familiar those failings are across multiple trusts. Similar issues have emerged in different parts of the country, at different times and under different leaderships. That points not simply to isolated breakdowns, but to systemic weaknesses that demand a national response.

A maternity commissioner could play a vital role in ensuring accountability, ensuring that recommendations are implemented, giving families a voice and providing leadership to drive improvement. However, a commissioner alone cannot answer the deeper questions: how did this happen repeatedly, in various hospitals, right across the UK, for decades? That is a deep set of questions relating to multiple failures. That is why a full national and public inquiry—more than a taskforce, although that is very welcome—is necessary. An inquiry could compel evidence, hear directly from families and staff, and examine culture as well as clinical practice. That would bring together the experiences of those affected not in fragments but as a whole. Too often learning has been localised and therefore somewhat limited. As a number of hon. Members have already said, reports are written and lessons are identified, but the wider national system fails to absorb them.

The creation of a maternity commissioner, the establishment of a full and proper national inquiry, and action on the outcomes of past and ongoing inquiries are not alternatives; they can be complementary in driving change and properly understanding the failures that have occurred over many years. We owe it to the families in Nottinghamshire and right around the country, and to my constituents, who have suffered life-changing harm and in many cases the deaths of children and mothers, as well as to those who rely on these services, to do all those things. I therefore welcome today’s debate, and I hope that the Government will take note of the points made.

Young Cancer Patients: Experiences and Outcomes

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to secure this important debate on a subject that matters deeply to me in my role as parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust, and as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people. It is an issue that matters profoundly to my constituents. In Mansfield, I am contacted regularly by young people, by parents and by families whose lives have been turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis. They write to me not just about treatment but about their wider experience—the fear, the uncertainty, and the disruption to education, work and relationships. They write because they want to be heard, and I hope that tonight the House, and indeed the Government, will listen.

Every few hours in the United Kingdom, a young person hears the words, “You have cancer”. It is mostly blood cancer, including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma—the most common cancers among children, teenagers and young adults in the UK. The reality is stark: more young people are getting cancer. Rates have risen by a quarter since the early 1990s, and the increase is projected to continue. Cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among teenagers and young adults in the UK, but even for those who survive, the impact can be lifelong—physically, emotionally and socially—especially when the right support is not there. This is happening at a time when life is already tough for young people, many of whom are facing economic uncertainty, struggling with mental health issues, and worrying about their futures. A cancer diagnosis compounds all that, often at the most formative stage of life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which is clearly very important to him—he has illustrated that through his commitment to these debates, which he always gets involved in. I congratulate him on that.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 60 children under the age of 16, and 80 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, are diagnosed with cancer each year. Although these cases are rare and account for only 1% of all diagnoses, they require a highly specialised, family-centred approach. Around 87% of young people survive for at least one year, and 78% survive for five years or more. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improvements can be made to ensure that our children have the best possible treatment, regardless of where they live? There should be no box for them; they should get treatment wherever they are in the United Kingdom.

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

This is Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it is right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked: young people who fall between children’s and adult services, and whose needs are too often not fully recognised. Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on children’s wards or alongside much older adults, with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. It pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24-year-olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS that are staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and which are designed to support not just treatment but the whole person. Today, 28 units across the UK help young people to receive care, alongside others their own age, in environments that protect their independence, dignity and mental health. At that age, cancer is not just a medical condition; it disrupts young people’s education, relationships, identity and plans for the future.

We know that when young people receive age-appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly, but only around half of young people with cancer currently benefit from this type of specialist support. One of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare and cannot be prevented. Blood cancer, which is the most common cancer for young people, does not have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, yet too many young people face delays.

Awareness of cancer symptoms among young people remains worryingly low. Fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds can identify key warning signs—things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. In Mansfield, I have heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness: multiple GP visits, uncertainty and delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. That experience was echoed by the family of 11-year-old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine-month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He made four initial GP visits and presented with a range of symptoms, which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or as a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before the cancer was diagnosed correctly.

It is important to recognise that such delays are not just clinical; they are often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression. I ask the Minister, how will the Government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs? What steps will be taken to raise awareness, both among young people and across primary care, of the signs and symptoms of cancer in this particular age group?

The second issue that I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person it is often overwhelming. They face fears about survival, about treatment and about their future. Their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted and their sense of identity can be shaken. It is deeply concerning. Studies including research from Young Lives vs Cancer, which provides specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience depression and nearly half experience panic attacks.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Yemm]

In view of the time, I will continue, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

These are not marginal figures. They represent the overwhelming majority, yet despite a clear NHS commitment that every young person should have access to mental health support, provision remains inconsistent. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. Five years ago, the Teenage Cancer Trust warned of that in its “#NotOK” report, but today progress remains limited.

In Mansfield, families have raised with me the difficulty of accessing timely mental health support during and after treatment. The family of Eilidh, a 23-year-old from Mansfield who was diagnosed with a rare lung cancer at the age of 20 after initially being reassured that nothing was wrong, made that point to me. She underwent the removal of an entire lung, but what followed was a lack of clear aftercare and support, with no structured rehabilitation, limited guidance on recovery and ongoing difficulty in navigating care. Her experience highlights not just the physical impact of cancer treatment, but the confusion, anxiety and gaps in support that too many young people face once treatment ends. I ask the Minister what funding and timelines are in place to ensure that every young person with cancer can access specialist psychological support, and not just during treatment but for at least two years afterwards.

The third issue is access to clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes and developing new treatments, but teenagers and young adults are significantly less likely than other age groups to take part, not because they do not wish to but because the system does not work for them. They are often excluded because of age restrictions: they are too old for paediatric trials and too young for adult trials. They are more likely to have rare cancers, meaning that fewer trials are available. I refer again to Joel from Mansfield: his family asked his doctors about opportunities to participate in a clinical trial, but were told that there were none. Even where trials exist, information can be difficult to find, both for clinicians and for parents.

The ambition has been clear—50% participation by 2025—but progress has been slow. No young person should miss out on a potentially lifesaving opportunity simply because of their age, so I ask the Minister how the Government will measure and report progress on improving access to clinical trials for young people, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery.

Finally, I want to address the issue of data. Too often, young people with cancer are effectively invisible in the system. Data is not consistently collected, not consistently reported and not always broken down in a way that allows us to understand their experiences. Without good data, it is hard to identify inequalities, we cannot target improvements and we cannot ensure accountability. What steps will the Minister take to improve the collection and publication of age-specific data on cancer outcomes for teenagers and young adults?

To conclude, the issues I have spoken about today matter deeply to my constituents in Mansfield and to the young people facing cancer today across the country. They also matter to the families supporting them, and they matter to all of us who believe that no young person should face this disease without the care and support they deserve. The evidence is clear: when young people receive timely diagnosis, age-appropriate care, access to psychological support and opportunities to participate in clinical trials, their outcomes improve. The Teenage Cancer Trust has shown what is possible, but it cannot do it alone. If we are serious about improving outcomes, the commitments in the national cancer plan must be delivered with urgency, funding and accountability. We need to improve awareness, we need to remove barriers and we must ensure that young people are no longer overlooked or underserved.

I will close with a simple request to the Minister: will she commit, alongside the Secretary of State who promised me personally that he would do so, to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit to hear directly from young people to understand their experiences and to see at first hand the difference that specialist age-appropriate care can make? If we truly listen to those young people, we will know exactly what needs to change.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

May I thank the hon. Member for the way in which he put his question? It is so important to emphasise that right across this House, there are many people who oppose this trial, but who do want to see trans people well supported and protected and to respect their identities. That is important for everyone to bear in mind.

The hon. Member talks about placebo. For obvious reasons in this case, a placebo would not be appropriate, because it would be very obvious whether a young person was receiving the real medication or the placebo, but the trial design has included a control group. The way in which the trial is established will help us to distinguish between the benefits of receiving or not receiving this particular medication, and there will be really close oversight of the impact on development, but he is right that we need to judge these things on the question of risk. That is what led Dr Cass to make her recommendation, and that is why I support it.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s answers today and his ongoing support for the Cass review. From his previous answers, it is clear that he has seen public opinion. Is he prepared to call an independent clinical review, given the high degree of public concern about the trial?

[Wes Streeting]

I am very happy to receive further clinical representations on this issue and to hear from experts on it. I hope the public will understand why, on this particular issue, I am not simply led by opinion polling. I have to follow the clinical advice and evidence, particularly given the enormous risks that surround these children and young people, including the risks that weighed on my shoulders and conscience when I denied access to puberty blockers by upholding the temporary ban and then making it permanent.

Obesity and Fatty Liver Disease

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right. With her public health expertise, she highlights the very real problems that lead to fatty liver disease: our broken food system, the issue with access to good, nutritious food for children in school, and the need to ensure that our stark health inequalities are addressed. I will come to that later in my speech.

To go back to the issue of diagnosis and treatment, we should note that a staggering 80% of England currently has no effective detection and treatment pathway—yes, a staggering 80%. The British Liver Trust, whose representatives are here today, is rightly calling for an end to this postcode lottery, so a key ask raised in this debate is that every integrated care board, every regional and national health area that we have, should have a full pathway for early detection of liver disease.

There is some excellent, innovative work out there that can help us to get to a much better place in tackling this disease. I recently met the team at Predictive Health Intelligence—whose representatives I think are also here today—who have developed hepatoSIGHT, which is a great name; well done. That is an inspiring example of how technology can transform early detection. The system uses existing NHS data to identify people at risk of liver disease before symptoms develop, allowing GPs proactively to invite patients for screening and support. I am delighted to say it is now being implemented across NHS South West. It is proof that, with genuine support from senior NHS management, clinical and digital teams at all levels can come together for the good of patients. That system is exactly the kind of innovation we need in order to make early diagnosis and prevention the norm and not the exception.

I now come to prevention. Screening and early diagnosis are vital but, as for all population health issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) rightly highlighted, we must have a laser focus on preventing the root causes of fatty liver disease.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this debate. We are calling obesity the enemy, but the liver does not count in pounds or kilograms. The real culprit is not body weight; it is metabolic dysfunction, as she points out—insulin resistance, poor diet, genetic risk and so forth. Lean people also get fatty liver disease, not always people who are overweight. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should talk less about obesity and more about screening early, taxing junk food and treating metabolic disorders and disease rather than strictly BMI? If we chase the scales, we might miss the science.

[Dr Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point and agree absolutely. In our society, we focus on how people look for many reasons, cultural and commercial, but this is purely about health. This is about keeping people healthy on the inside and allowing them to live good quality lives. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in that sense.

Poor diet is now the leading risk factor for death and disability. It is responsible for millions of preventable deaths each year. In the UK, almost two thirds of adults are overweight or are living with obesity, increasing the risk of fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease and a multitude of cancers. In my job as a public health consultant, I see a lot of data and read many papers, but this statistic shocked me: four in 10 children with obesity may already have fatty liver disease. That demonstrates the urgent need to act now to prevent an even greater epidemic of disease in future.

That has not happened by accident; it is the result of a broken food system, which has made the UK Europe’s third most obese country and one of the world’s biggest consumers of ultra-processed food. We have a system that makes the unhealthy choice the cheapest, easiest and most available choice. Healthier food now costs more than twice as much per calorie as unhealthy food. That is £10.24 per 1,000 kilocalories compared with £4.50. For fruit and vegetables, the cost is even more at £11.90 per 1,000 kilocalories.

For the lowest income households, following a recommended healthy diet would swallow half or more of their disposable income. It is no surprise that obesity and fatty liver disease hit hardest in poorer communities. As I said at the beginning, this is not about personal failure. As hon. Members have said, sometimes people feel that that they are failing to lose weight and failing to keep themselves healthy. This is not about personal failure; it is a political failure. It is our collective failure to create a food environment that protects rather than undermines public health. If we are serious about prevention, we must be serious about reform—the right type—with stronger fiscal and regulatory measures to reduce the availability and marketing of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and to rebuild a food system that serves public health and not profit.

Why have we not addressed this yet? Weighted against the commercial gain of the food and drink industry, our obesogenic environment is killing our population and costing the taxpayer billions. Economic analysis last year suggests that excess weight costs the economy £126 billion a year. A Budget is coming up next month; I am fairly sure that our Chancellor would like £126 billion a year. That figure takes in wider factors, such as lost productivity, care costs and lost years of healthy life. The direct NHS cost of obesity is projected to rise from £6.5 billion to £9.7 billion by 2050. We cannot separate our health and our wealth, and we cannot hope to achieve economic growth without tackling issues such as obesity and fatty liver disease.

Since 1990, there have been nearly 700 policies proposed by Government to reduce obesity. Imagine having 700 policies about your life! Past strategies fell short because they targeted behaviour change—individual choice—rather than the structural and commercial drivers of diet. Many lacked delivery plans, timelines or evaluation frameworks, leading to fragmented progress and limited long-term impact.

What can we do now to ensure that this public health emergency is addressed? My key asks for our Health Minister, who is kindly listening here today, are as follows. First, there is a clear need for a national liver strategy, ensuring increased public awareness, early liver checks and primary care pathways. As stated earlier, every integrated care board should have a pathway for the early detection of liver disease.

Secondly, we need strong planning and co-ordination to be ready to deliver the next generation of medication for liver disease. Thirdly, if we truly mean to deliver the left shift to prevention, promised in the 10-year health plan for England, then we have to change the environment that is driving poor health. There is strong consensus about the necessity of upstream interventions to regulate the unhealthy food and drink environment. We can build on that strong consensus to extend the levy model to high-sugar and high-salt foods; to enforce the 9 pm watershed for high fat, salt and sugar advertising, closing brand mark loopholes; to provide stable funding for local food partnerships, so that councils can act on local needs; to reinstate the full childhood obesity plan; and to address food affordability via fiscal reform.

None of this is easy or it would have been done already, but right now our environment is draining our health service of billions each year and weighing heavily on the nation’s health—no pun intended. Let us not keep repeating our mistakes, but rather embed food policy as a national health priority. Through our work on preventing obesity and fatty liver disease, let us support and finally see the long-discussed and essential shift towards prevention and a healthier, wealthier country.

Children’s Health

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Today I want to speak about a group of young people who are too often overlooked in our healthcare system: teenagers and young people with cancer. Every day in the UK, seven young people are told the devastating words, “You have cancer.” That is not just a statistic; it is a wake-up call for all of us.

Cancer remains the biggest disease-related killer of young people in our country, yet their unique experiences and their physical, psychological and social needs are too often sidelined. If we are serious about improving outcomes for them, we need to act on three fronts. First, we need faster diagnosis. Young people must be given clear, accessible information about the symptoms of cancer, and our primary care system must be better equipped to spot those symptoms early.

Secondly, we need access to clinical trials. I welcome the conversation that representatives of the Teenage Cancer Trust and I had only last week with the Minister for Public Health on this very issue. Young people currently participate in trials at lower rates than other groups, so they miss out on cutting-edge treatments that could save lives.

Thirdly, we need to address mental health. More than half of young people with cancer experience poor mental health, and almost nine in 10 psychologists say that our current services cannot meet demand.

Cancer does not just interrupt a young life but collides with it at a time of exams, discovering new relationships, identity growth and development, and the least that we can do is make sure that our systems do not fail young people. Let us ensure that the next national cancer plan reflects this reality, and let us give all these young people the care and support that they deserve.

GP Funding: South-west England

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley]

All those things help, along with things like bringing back nurses’ bursaries. On rearranging the deckchairs, it is no wonder that practice managers described this year’s settlement as unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the increase of over 7% in GP contract funding for 2025-26, which the Government put in place, represents the biggest investment in GPs for more than 10 years? We always want to get more money for GPs and the Government are committed to that, but does he think that the largest increase in 10 years should make at least some difference for his constituents in Newton Abbot as well as mine in Mansfield?

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but sadly, I must disagree. That is not what practice managers are telling me. Their costs have gone up so much that all of the increase has been swallowed up, and they are not sure they can keep the lights on. They are really struggling. I have partners in GP practices who are paying themselves less than the minimum wage, which is not sustainable.

Patient demand has also increased post pandemic, and continued cuts have seen the removal of many services and social care that have supported what GPs do. On top of the cuts to Sure Start and a 40% drop in health visitors since 2015, carers already stretched thin face the prospect of losing personal independence payment support, which will inevitably rebound on general practice—the first line of defence. That is not to mention long covid and pandemic backlogs. All of those drive more people to want to see their GP. The cost of living crisis is compounding multimorbidity, where the most vulnerable in society with chronic illnesses are further pressured.

And then, we get the new requirement to run the appointment schedule from 8 am to 6 pm, filling every single slot. From October, practices must hold digital front doors, open all day, for non-urgent requests. With 100% booked appointments, there is no spare capacity for the person who falls in the care home or for the child who needs attention after school. Partners in the Albany surgery in Newton Abbot warn me that an unlimited invitation will flood a service that simply cannot be limitless. This is unsafe—unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.

Talented doctors are leaving. The partnership model, still the cheapest and most community-rooted option, is no longer attractive when partners shoulder unlimited liability for premises, pensions and payroll, yet cannot guarantee safe staffing levels. The Royal College of GPs reports a 25% fall in GP partners over the past decade. The chair, Professor Kamila Hawthorne, put it bluntly:

“It makes no sense that trained GPs cannot find sustainable posts while patients wait weeks for appointments.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his contribution on this matter of long-overdue concern.

Cornwall faces some of the most severe health inequalities in the country. In January, more patients waited more than 30 minutes in ambulances outside hospital in Cornwall than anywhere else. That is not just a statistic; it is a clear sign that our health system is under serious pressure locally.

We know the reasons: our higher levels of deprivation, an older population, poor transport links that make it harder to recruit and retain the NHS and social care staff we urgently need, and the enormous impact of our visitor economy, which is finally going to be taken into account in local government funding, thanks to the fair funding review. Those deep-rooted structural challenges mean that many people across Cornwall struggle to access timely care.

For that reason, I welcome the forthcoming announcement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that the Labour Government will top up the system with £2.2 billion to improve general practice in the poorest areas with the highest health need. That is the right decision and the right priority for communities like mine in St Austell, Newquay and the clay country. The impact is already being felt. In mid-Cornwall, Newquay health centre and Brannel surgery are already set to receive vital upgrades. That is part of the biggest investment in GP facilities for five years, even before today’s announcement.

[Steve Yemm]

Last month, the Government announced the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, which will deliver more than £100 million for upgrades to more than 1,000 GP surgeries. A number of GP surgeries in my constituency will benefit, including the Sherwood Medical Partnership surgery in Forest Town, Mansfield. Does my hon. Friend agree that that funding will make a huge difference? It will enable practices to boost productivity by seeing more patients and will improve patient care overall.

[Noah Law]

Yes, I agree. I am greatly relieved for my hon. Friend and his constituents that vital funding is already coming through and that the urgency has been recognised. In Newquay, for example, people have not even been able to sign up with a new GP. That is shocking, given that it is now Cornwall’s biggest town and one of the fastest growing. The assertion should not be levelled that we are not doing enough to invest in infrastructure and services alongside house building, because we are coming forward with the needed investment.

Nationally, we are looking at 8.3 million more GP appointments a year, but it is not just about the numbers. It is about restoring trust in the NHS—trust that the infrastructure and services that we need will come together with growth, which will make care local, accessible and timely. We are fixing the front door of the NHS in our GP surgeries and, thanks to our Health Secretary’s leadership, we are fixing the corridors, the consultation rooms and the care that happens before patients reach A&E, as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot mentioned. That should be the goal.

Cornwall must not be overlooked. We must be prioritised in the 10-year plan for health. How will the Government ensure that rural and coastal communities such as those in Cornwall are prioritised for once and receive their fair share of new investment, particularly considering our peninsula penalty—just as we are now starting to see happening through local government? Will the Minister commit to delivering not just more appointments, but a long-term workforce plan that reflects the needs of our ageing population and the barriers to staff recruitment in rural areas? Cornwall’s health inequalities have been ignored for too long, but with this new Labour Government we finally have a partner in Westminster that is listening and acting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Yemm Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady is right that pharmacies will play a central role in the shift from hospital to community that we will be putting at the heart of our 10-year plan. An important part of that, of course, is Pharmacy First. The take-up of Pharmacy First is not what we would like it to be, so we are looking at options to increase awareness of Pharmacy First and to free up pharmacists to be able to operate at the top of their licence. Part of that is about streamlining the dispensing side of what they do, and the hub and spoke legislation that I mentioned earlier will be really important in that context.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

The Minister has spoken many times about the importance of shifting from hospital to the community. I have visited many local pharmacies and met the chair of Community Pharmacy Nottinghamshire, seeing at first hand the important work they do to support communities in Mansfield. Does the Minister agree that community pharmacies have a key role to play in that shift and could help to take pressure off GP surgeries?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for the work he is doing in his constituency, including with pharmacies. In many ways, what we want to see is a culture change, because the interface between general practice and community pharmacy is not where it should be. We believe that pharmacists have a huge amount more to offer, but that requires a better digital interface and better information sharing—a single patient record. That sort of vehicle will be really important for delivering some of those reforms.