Alex Brewer
MP for North East Hampshire · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The new houses are no more affordable—in fact, properties in North East Hampshire are some of the most expensive outside London—but under the Government’s housing policies, developers are being allowed to land-bank: to push through application after application, despite the lack of infrastructure, and to hold on to land for years or decad…”
“That problem needs fixing, and the NPPF changes not only do not address it, but open up a raft of other problems. The Conservative Administrations that previously ran Hart district council and Basingstoke and Deane borough council failed to produce local plans.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate. It is clearly essential to build homes. One reason why I am sitting in this place is my work to support victims of domestic abuse.”
“However, this Government’s new housing targets have rendered those new plans all but redundant. Those council areas are now easy targets for entirely inappropriate housing developments. When the balance tips in favour of appeal, it is not the people but the developers who benefit.”
“Nobody believed that that could be completed in six months, but Ofwat has no powers to compel South East Water to publish a plan that is in any way based in reality. The consequences of this regulatory and legislative failure sit with local people and the environment.”
“The Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital rebuild has been delayed by up to two decades. The buildings are in a dire state and becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Land for the new hospital is secured, so what possible justification can there be for further delay in building this new hospital?”
The complete record
Every one of 178 lines we hold for Alex Brewer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Nobody believed that that could be completed in six months, but Ofwat has no powers to compel South East Water to publish a plan that is in any way based in reality. The consequences of this regulatory and legislative failure sit with local people and the environment. Failure to supply local fresh water has obvious consequences, but the environment also suffers. We have heard already about how the Environment Agency has cancelled the supply of water in Greywell, yet South East Water continues to abstract from the site.”
“The new houses are no more affordable—in fact, properties in North East Hampshire are some of the most expensive outside London—but under the Government’s housing policies, developers are being allowed to land-bank: to push through application after application, despite the lack of infrastructure, and to hold on to land for years or decades as it increases in value. Applications come in for a raft of inappropriate places, and all the while, there is no statutory consultee for our most important resource. Water is out biggest concern, and it is absent from the Government’s plans. South East Water, which supplies fresh water to most of North East Hampshire, produced a five-year plan in autumn 2024 that is largely a work of fiction, citing a new pipeline that would supply new and existing homes that would come online in spring 2025.”
“However, this Government’s new housing targets have rendered those new plans all but redundant. Those council areas are now easy targets for entirely inappropriate housing developments. When the balance tips in favour of appeal, it is not the people but the developers who benefit. In Basingstoke and Deane, planning permission for around 6,000 new homes has already been granted. In Hart, the major developer working on the biggest housing project has slowed down building: instead of building and selling 200 houses at a time, it is now building 50 to protect its profits.”
“That problem needs fixing, and the NPPF changes not only do not address it, but open up a raft of other problems. The Conservative Administrations that previously ran Hart district council and Basingstoke and Deane borough council failed to produce local plans. That left those areas subject to speculative development granted on appeal, resulting in the building of large housing estates on the edges of our towns and villages, with no accompanying infrastructure. To make the best of a bad situation, the Liberal Democrats on Hart district council introduced a local plan, which, crucially, meant that houses were built sustainably on brownfield land. When the Lib Dems took joint control of Basingstoke and Deane borough council, a local plan was prioritised and progressed.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate. It is clearly essential to build homes. One reason why I am sitting in this place is my work to support victims of domestic abuse. For those, often with children, who are on a six-month stay in a refuge while fleeing the most dreadful violence, a secure home is the first step towards a new, safe future. However, the Government have introduced no targets for council or social housing, despite the Liberal Democrats making many calls for them to do so. The dreadful shortage left as the legacy of successive Conservative Governments is, at the very least, not being remedied by this Labour Government.”
“The Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital rebuild has been delayed by up to two decades. The buildings are in a dire state and becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Land for the new hospital is secured, so what possible justification can there be for further delay in building this new hospital?”
“It cannot be right that a sector that is already operating on wafer-thin margins is left to absorb more and more tax rises.”
“Let us be clear about the scale of the pressure that the sector is under. Providers are being hammered by rising costs: increased employer national insurance contributions, rising energy costs just to keep the lights on, business rates and more. One nursery provider in my constituency of North East Hampshire told me that their liability insurance had risen by 19% this year alone, and that was on top of a 59% jump in business rates. Department for Education analysis published in May found that on average providers took in just £1.01 for every £1 that they spent in 2025, and nearly half of providers reported income that fell short of covering their costs. I am aware that one nursery in my constituency is required to subsidise the Government’s funded offer by more than £51,000 in this academic year alone.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the adequacy of early years funding in Hampshire. It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. A Hampshire nursery manager recently told me: “Sometimes the funding arrives so late that we are genuinely worried about making wages.” That sentence has stayed with me, because it captures something that the national conversation about “free childcare” too often misses. The question is not simply whether Hampshire has enough childcare places on paper. It is also whether every family can access suitable, affordable and high-quality early education and childcare when they actually need it and whether providers have the funding and workforce to deliver that sustainably. Those are two very different questions, and today I want to address them both.”
“A child’s future should not be a postcode lottery. Investing in our future generations is the best investment we can make, for them, for families and for society. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling for early years providers to be exempted from the rise in employer national insurance contributions. Hampshire’s early years providers are not asking for handouts; they are asking for the funding that was promised to arrive, to be enough and to be on time. A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place a family can use. A free hour that no provider can afford to deliver is not free at all. Our children’s futures, and those caring for them, deserve nothing less.”
“Before entering this House, I served as a school governor and ran a charity supporting children and young adults with Down’s syndrome and their families, so this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me that the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate. By the time a child is identified, their needs are often already very high. What funding does arrive frequently pays for only an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the one-to-one specialist care that many children need, and staff often lack the specialist training required. Indeed, in my previous line of work, it was the charity that stepped in to provide the training—a service with the uncertainty of being funded solely through donations and simply not available everywhere in the country.”
“As with any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my North East Hampshire constituency tell me that they are paid in arrears, with funding for a month’s care landing in the last three days of that same month, compared with other counties that pay before the month even starts. So Hampshire nurseries are covering an entire month of wages, rent and bills with private fees. When that is combined with low or no profit margins, it sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to thrive, but the circumstances are far from ideal for that. Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for children with special educational needs and disabilities.”
“As of September 2025, the county council projected that Hampshire would need an additional 2,100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited just to meet the promise of 30 hours a week. This promise is not all it is made out to be. The figure of 30 hours is based on term-time care only, so for those parents who work full-time, that is spread out over 52 weeks, not 38. The rate for three and four-year-olds that is paid to settings is lower than the cost to provide the service, so those paying for additional hours are, in effect, subsidising the free provision. For those families who are barely getting by, with high living costs and stagnant wages for their own work, it is often more expensive for both parents to work. That is not good for our economy.”
“Every parent stuck on a waiting list is living with the downstream consequence of a workforce crisis that starts with underfunding, and Hampshire reflects many of the challenges in microcosm. It is a large county, spanning urban, rural and coastal communities. Hampshire county council’s childcare sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges: expanding supply to meet the extended 30-hour entitlement; tackling recruitment and retention; and ensuring that rising demand does not squeeze out children with special educational needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds—the very children who stand to gain the most from a good-quality early years setting. Free childcare makes for a great headline, but it has to be deliverable.”
“Parents do not use the language of workforce policy, but they feel its consequences all the same, including in high staff turnover, longer waiting lists, reduced flexibility and the particular difficulty of finding a place for a child with additional needs. A Hampshire nursery manager put the underlying cause to me plainly: rising costs have not come with a matched uplift in the funding rate. Staffing alone accounts for three quarters of costs in the early years sector. That leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions. Providers cannot compete for the experienced senior staff necessary to deliver high-quality support, and high staff turnover leads to higher training costs.”
“Yes, I absolutely agree; that is a precise summary of the current position. When we think of early years, most of us automatically think of nurseries, but in many areas of the country, and especially North East Hampshire, many families rely on local childminders. Earlier this month, a constituent of mine, Lorna, told me that after almost 26 years of running her childminding business, she must close it because of mounting financial pressures. She has loved the job, but the lack of any promise of a better financial future has left her with no choice. Every ambition that we hold for this system—more places, better outcomes and proper support for children with additional needs—depends on a stable, skilled and well-supported workforce.”
“The small businesses that my hon. Friend is talking about make up 84% of store closures nationally. That trend is felt very much in my constituency, as I am sure it is in hers. Does she agree that the Government must urgently reform our business rates system before those independent businesses vanish from our high streets entirely?”
“Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine has beautiful countryside pubs but they are struggling. Pub owners have told me that this year is worse than the covid years. They face closure, despite being the only place for communities to meet in rural areas, as in many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must overhaul the entire business rate system to give pubs the support they need to thrive, not just barely survive?”
“In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?”
“It is arguable that, for families on Ancells Farm, every single one of those criteria is met for every child in one way or another, yet parents have been fighting for years to keep the bus service going. We must consider what more the Government can do to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded and meeting their statutory duties towards the children in their care. I urge the Minister to consider what families are facing in Ancells and elsewhere across the country.”
“The Government’s own guidance on free school transport sets out clearly how children qualify. Rightly, they qualify if they cannot walk to school because of special educational needs, disability or mobility problems. They qualify when there is no safe walking route, but if the council refuses to undertake a sufficient assessment, who decides what is and is not safe? They qualify if the school is more than 2 miles away and they are under eight, or if the school is more than 3 miles away and they are eight or older. That often leaves families in the ridiculous situation of having to walk an eight-year-old to school while their seven-year-old is on the bus.”
“Those are four hours that cannot be spent working, caring for other children, managing a home or doing any of the other things that family life demands. The route crosses the railway station entrance with no pedestrian crossing, and runs along the town’s busiest roads at rush hour. Parents have raised serious concerns about its safety. They have paid out of their own pockets for an independent safety assessment, which has identified real hazards, while Hampshire county council has refused to conduct a safety assessment of its own. One school is 10 minutes closer, which is not nothing for a young child, but it is not in catchment, and there is no public bus as an alternative because rural bus services, even in semi-rural commuter towns, have been cut. Let me turn briefly to the law, because it is instructive.”
“Those ripple effects reach into every corner of family life. Less income means less financial resilience. It means fewer after-school clubs, fewer activities and fewer of the enriching experiences that support a child’s development and wellbeing. The broken promise of a bus is not just an inconvenience. For the parents who do not drive, the situation is simply unworkable. The walk to the catchment primary school is 2.4 miles according to Google Maps—other maps are available—which is 54 minutes on foot. For a five-year-old, it would take considerably longer, as I am sure we can all imagine. For a parent doing the round trip twice—there and back in the morning, and again at the end of the day—that is close to four hours of walking every single school day.”
“It is the subject of a stage 3 complaint with Hampshire county council and has been referred to the ombudsman, but while complaints work their way through the bureaucratic channels, families are struggling today. Let me be specific about what that looks like. I am all in favour of children walking to school whenever practical and possible. Parents are doing the school run twice a day, every day. Even by car, that is still time taken away from work. For those in paid-hourly or shift-based employment, it means hours lost, and hours lost mean money lost. For those in salaried roles, it means arriving late, leaving early or relying on the good will of employers, which cannot be taken for granted indefinitely. Some parents have had to reduce their working hours; others have had to turn down responsibilities or opportunities at work.”
“When it does not, families and communities pay the price. I have a local example of exactly that. When Ancells Farm, a housing development in my North East Hampshire constituency, was built with the promise of a local primary school, families moved there in good faith. That school was never built. However, as part of a new arrangement, Hampshire county council promised a free bus to take children to their catchment school. That promise, too, has now been broken. What exists today is a bus service restricted solely to eligible students, with no spare seat capacity whatsoever. The decision to reduce the bus size, removing additional seats that parents were not only willing but actively prepared to pay for, has had real and serious consequences.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this important debate. Connection and mobility are key to a social, happy and healthy society—and, as we are hearing, an educated one. The ability to build networks, reach community and simply get where we need to go matters, and it matters most in the early years of a child’s development. It councils’ responsibility to ensure that money allocated is properly spent, but it is Government’s responsibility to ensure that councils have adequate funding, including for home-to-school transport. That funding is provided through recurrent general funding allocations, and the Government must make absolutely certain that their funding formula matches local needs.”
“Veterans’ mental health challenges can be significant, for obvious reasons—trauma, stress, spending a long time away from friends and family, and so on. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, devastatingly, veterans under the age of 24 have a suicide rate that is two to four times higher than that for the civilian population of the same age. Given that mental health problems are so significant and less visible than physical health needs, does my hon. Friend agree that establishing the role of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer, as outlined in new clause 12, would ensure that mental health support is robust?”
“In my area, children waiting for ADHD assessments—many already on the standard pathway for years—have been told that they will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest. We know this is happening nationally, because Healthwatch told us in its 2024 report. Does my hon. Friend agree that abolishing Healthwatch—the only statutory independent body holding our NHS to account—will leave the most vulnerable patients without a voice and the NHS marking its own homework?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As the representative for North East Hampshire, I know all too well the premium that many rural households face when it comes to bills and expenses. Rural households already have a really heavy burden, as he has outlined, including higher rates of fuel poverty, lower energy efficiency and a fuel poverty gap of £987 against their urban counterparts. More than 5,000 households in my constituency rely on heating oil. Does he agree that the Government have a responsibility to act, probably through a price cap, which would ensure that rural households are not penalised simply for where they live?”
“The Government must not be complicit in halting the progress on preventing such violence against girls, no matter where they are born. Understanding intersectionality is vital to feminism today, and I call on the Government to recognise that, in our interconnected world, solving violent crime against women and girls everywhere is everyone’s responsibility.”
“In the last decade, more than 41,000 women and girls have had FGM identified at an NHS appointment in this country, yet in the five-year period between 2019 and 2024, there was just one conviction under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Protection must not stop at the border. Intervention must happen before a child boards a plane and after she lands. Frontline non-governmental organisations in source countries are often best placed to prevent FGM. The practice of FGM is rooted in gender inequality, control of girls’ bodies and forced silence. True solidarity means recognising that their struggle is our struggle. By supporting global efforts to end FGM through aid and diplomacy, the UK helps to meet its international commitments and reduces the chance of FGM happening to people who live here.”
“In our report on FGM, the Women and Equalities Committee was clear: the Government must protect funding for programmes that prevent FGM and set out their plans for future investment in that vital work. Instead, in their response, the Government confirmed that their flagship programme to end FGM will finish in October 2026, and that there are no plans at all for what comes next. That is not just disappointing; it is deeply irresponsible. When Britain invests in the freedom and wellbeing of girls globally, we gain a safer, fairer and more stable world. That is why, when the Liberal Democrats were in government, we secured a commitment of 0.7% of gross national income for overseas aid. FGM is, of course, illegal here too, but in today’s global society, British girls are being taken abroad to undergo cutting in areas with fewer protections.”
“Non-governmental organisations and grassroots women’s organisations are uniquely effective, because they are trusted by families and embedded in communities. Those organisations are part-funded by British overseas aid, which this Government are now reducing. Those organisations’ funding runs out this year, just as the message is starting to get through. The reduction in aid tears holes in the safety net for the world’s most vulnerable communities, and leaves young girls more exposed. The Government’s decision to reduce the United Kingdom’s official development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income will have real-world consequences. It represents the lowest United Kingdom aid contribution as a share of gross national income since 1999 and diminishes our long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance.”
“Beyond that clear physical trauma, many women live with depression, flashbacks and lifelong psychological scars. It is a form of torture. FGM is a serious violation of human rights and bodily autonomy, not a cultural inevitability, and more than 4 million girls are at risk every single year, yet in The Gambia, I also saw hope. I saw the profound impact of not-for-profit and grassroots organisations, who work creatively and sensitively in communities to remove economic and cultural barriers to change. Data gathering is difficult in a country with such severe poverty, but initial estimates suggest that the prevalence of FGM has fallen: it has gone from affecting around 76% of girls to around 51%.”
“It is steeped in misguided ideas of a woman’s virtue—ideas that are pervasive, and that manifest in all cultures in different ways, of which FGM is, I believe, one of the most insidious and violent. In January, I travelled to The Gambia as part of a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. FGM was made illegal in The Gambia in 2015, yet the practice continues. In fact, to avoid detection, cutting is now carried out on increasingly younger girls, and sometimes even on babies, with devastating and sometimes fatal consequences. The practice has no health benefits and causes lifelong problems, including severe bleeding, incontinence, infections, long-term pain, menstrual problems, complications in childbirth and an increased risk of newborn deaths.”
“Progress for women is never a zero-sum game. When we lift up the most marginalised, we all rise. That is why “Give to Gain” is such an important theme. It has made me reflect that we as a country and a society must give overseas aid if we are to help build a more progressive, fair and stable world. Today, I want to raise one of the most difficult and taboo subjects in the area of violence against women and girls, but one that we must confront: female genital mutilation, commonly known as FGM or cutting. It is a sensitive and distressing topic, but to break taboos, we must start to articulate the problem. Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or injury to the female genital organs for any non-medical reasons.”
“This year’s theme, as we have heard, is “Give to Gain”. That prompted me to think about feminism on a global scale, and how interconnected we truly all are. Our globalised world is far from being made up of isolated countries, bounded by iron borders; we exist in the physical space and online. Our geopolitical landscape is shifting constantly, and feminism must move with it. The experiences of women are shaped by overlapping factors of race, class, disability, migration status, sexuality, faith and geography. Feminism policy cannot be effective if it only reflects the lives of the most privileged. Some of the gravest injustices faced by women globally include physical violence, forced marriage and economic exclusion, and they fall hardest on those who are at multiple intersections of disadvantage.”
“My hon. Friend is giving a powerful and important speech. Half the residents in my constituency are served by Basingstoke hospital, which was included in the now infamous promise of 40 new hospitals by 2030. Now it seems completion could be as late as 2046. The delay means another 20 years of spending taxpayers’ money on a building with leaking windows, exposed wiring, an uninsulated roof and countless other physical problems, with a bill that goes up and up every year to maintain that crumbling building. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking taxpayers to pay twice is a waste of public money, and Basingstoke hospital and others should have their rebuilds brought forward?”
“What measures is the Minister taking to protect communities from inappropriate, speculative development when effective and expensive local plans that were working have been rendered effectively useless by new housing targets?”
“Founded and still based in my constituency of North East Hampshire, it was originally called the Samantha Dickson Research Trust, founded by Angela and Neil Dickson in memory of their daughter who died aged just 16 in 1996. The charity now supports thousands of people all across the country, including my friend. It also funds research, and the founders raised with me the unspent funding that languishes while survival rates remain stubbornly low. I call on the Minister to ensure that the Government work with researchers so that the best-quality research can help to change outcomes for future generations.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing this important debate to the House. I want to talk briefly about two things. First, I want to acknowledge and put on the record the bravery of my very close, lifelong friend, Karin Buschenfeld. She, like 45% of those diagnosed with a brain tumour, received that diagnosis in A&E in a very haphazard manner last month—that is double the rate for other cancers. She and her family are now adjusting to a very difficult new reality. The other reason for my speaking today is to celebrate the amazing work of the Brain Tumour Charity.”
“My semi-rural constituency is less than an hour from London, so people would think the broadband would be tip-top, but it is far from it. In some areas, speeds are less than 1 megabit per second. As we have discussed, this prevents businesses from holding online meetings and so on, but it also means that, for example, students cannot go home in the holidays to stay with their parents because they simply cannot complete their studies. Does the hon. Member agree that high-speed broadband is critical to this country’s infrastructure and that the Government have a duty not to leave rural communities behind?”
“I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s mother, and the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Many people in my constituency of North East Hampshire face similar challenges. I have personal experience with a relative who could not get a diagnosis in Hampshire despite many of us, as her family members, trying very hard to help her to do so. She ended up having to fund all her care herself, and did not get treatments that she might have needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise this care so that people with dementia can have continuity and the support that they need?”
“I am pleased that the Government have listened to my calls, and to those of other Liberal Democrats, to mention the explicit protection of chalk stream rivers in the statement. The Minister mentions the consistent application of policy. Will he confirm whether those policies might include, for example, exclusion zones around chalk streams to protect them fully as unique and irreplaceable habitats?”
“The hon. Gentleman talks effusively about the benefits of our biggest trading partner, Europe, and the disaster of Brexit. Does he agree with me that we should be forging a new customs union as soon as possible?”
“Given that Brexit has left a £90 billion hole in the UK’s tax revenues and that small business owners in my constituency of North East Hampshire are telling me that the last two Budgets have been “catastrophic” for them, why are the Government not pursuing a bespoke UK-EU customs union to cut red tape, boost economic growth and support British businesses?”
“T5. In North East Hampshire, small energy-intensive businesses such as hair salons are struggling, because they cannot reduce their consumption. What plans does the Minister have to support those kinds of small businesses?”
“As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons that Epstein escaped justice for so long was that he was protected by other powerful men, and that if we are truly to protect young people from predators, we need to ensure that the protectors of paedophiles have absolutely no place in public life?”
“People in my constituency have raised with me problems of hare coursing, thefts, speeding and fly-tipping. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can tackle the wide range of crimes in rural areas?”