Alex Brewer MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to follow up on parental responsibility. I know we have talked about this a lot, but I think it is really important. To follow up on your point about appeals through the family court, have you looked into alternatives to that, such as appeals through a different court or no appeals at all? Alex Davies-Jones: I suppose that could be considered, but the family court is currently the route that is available to someone to appeal. By preventing an appeal, you would get into a whole swathe of issues, and you could be in a very difficult situation if there was no route to appeal. We are aware of the issues in the family court and, as I have just said, it is important to not take this Bill in isolation. A lot of work is being done in the Ministry of Justice to look at how we improve the family court, not least through the work we are doing on pathfinder courts and ensuring that the voice of the child is centred in proceedings considering children. It is very difficult, but I do not envisage any mechanism where you could introduce a measure such as this and not have the right to appeal. Given that the family court is the most appropriate route for that, and where they hear those proceedings, it would not be practical to create a different mechanism. I do not see it fitting and being realistic in any other way.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Coming back to parental consent—at the risk of labouring the point—you have all said that you would like that to be extended. Do you think that removing the minimum requirement of a four-year sentence would help to protect more children? Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest. Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you see any gaps in the Bill, or areas where you would like it to go further? Mark Brooks: It is not so much in the Bill, and the Minister knows our position on this, but there continues to be an issue with how male victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and other crimes are seen by society and, importantly, within the justice system. We know that the present and the previous Victims’ Commissioners support the position that male victims of domestic abuse should not be classed as victims of violence against a woman or a girl. A son, as covered by the Victims and Courts Bill, has been characterised, classed and defined by successive Governments as a victim of violence against a girl, even though he is obviously a boy. The same issue applies to male victims of domestic abuse. Successive Governments have officially classed them as being victims of violence against a woman. We are asking that “violence against women and girls” be changed to include male victims. When the Bill is enacted, any male victim covered by it should no longer be classed as a victim of violence against a woman or a girl. That has to change; it is quite Orwellian, aside from anything else, as it is clearly incorrect. We therefore need to get more male victims recognised in their own right. They would then have more access, more understanding and better support to be able to come forward and benefit from the measures in the Bill. This is a wider political issue. Just to reiterate, we want to keep the violence against women and girls strategy and definition, but we want a parallel view for male victims.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What difference do you think the measures proposed in the Bill will make to victims and survivors, and what might the gaps be? Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome. Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim. Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap. I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve. Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors. The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning. There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them. We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice. The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims? Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children. On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What do you think will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme? Katie Kempen: We think it is clear and makes it quite accessible. From our perspective, if possible, we would like to see the eligibility for the victim contact scheme to go to all victims of domestic abuse. As Nicole mentioned, a person might not be convicted of a DA-related offence, but there is none the less an impact on the victim. You have referred to flagging as part of the sentencing review, and we think that could help. Where possible, we would like to see it extended. However, it seems as though the reforms will make it easier and clearer for victims to access support information. Baroness Newlove: I agree. Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would just underscore for the Committee that the inclusion of children is very important. I recently published a report on children, “Victims in their own right?”—that question mark was on purpose. One aspect of the report was mapping 700 services for children in England and Wales, and the fact that one in five say that they do not have adequate funding, which had led to curtailment. If I had to name one of the largest gaps we have in victim services—I would say there are gaps across the board—it is the huge gap in relation to children. That goes back to this continual theme. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act, we have the duty to collaborate. I was a huge champion for that, and I am now very involved in its enactment, but it does not create any new funds for services for victims; it says to local areas, “You have a duty to collaborate on the funding streams that currently exist”. I would say that a huge gap in this Bill is a duty to fund community-based services. Without wishing to embarrass Katie by talking about the incredible work that is done by Victim Support, there is a range of services that are the foundation of support for victims. They do not sit in core budgets like other kinds of public services do. That is one thing we have to fundamentally address for victims to have that kind of end-to-end support. I will not labour it any more, but I have to point out the biggest gap. It is great to have children defined, but what does that mean? Katie Kempen: The reality for us is that the budgets for commissioning services are being cut, so the services that we can provide are being cut. The increase in national insurance contributions has obviously hit the sector really hard as well. We support all this work to improve the victim experience, but it needs to go hand in hand with a well-resourced victim sector that can take victims from the point of the crime occurring—even pre-charge and pre-contacting the police—right to the end of the criminal justice process. Baroness Newlove: Can I bring it back to the information for victims? The one thing I am really concerned about is the importance of what information is given to victims, because it is very patchy. They are being told, “We cannot tell you whether the offender has been released”, and they cannot be told where the offender lives or what the offender knows about their exclusion zones. I truly welcome the fact that we will hopefully turn it into a restriction zone, because I have mapped my life out, and I have three offenders who know exactly where I am. More importantly, the information takes too long and is very clunky. The victim liaison officer tries to do as much as they can, but I think this is an ideal opportunity—I am looking at the Minister—to let the victim know that, if the offender has been released, he does not live in the area; he lives 300 miles away. That gives comfort. I have met a victim who is petrified that the offender lives near her, because nobody will tell her where the offender is. We are not saying police must pinpoint where he is, but, if that offender lives 300 miles away, she can at least go out the door and go to the shops without feeling that he will be around the corner. That is really important. Why are we nervous about sharing information about offenders when offenders can know a lot about victims?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Hampshire is a county that falls into the f40 group, which are areas that receive some of the lowest per-pupil funding in the country. This disparity is hitting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities the hardest. The cumulative deficit in Hampshire for the dedicated schools grant now sits at £86.1 million. That is not just a number on a spreadsheet but a daily reality in schools across my constituency. Despite having to find the first £6,000 of funding for every EHCP, schools in North East Hampshire, as with elsewhere, are bending over backwards to do everything they can to support these pupils. A headteacher in my constituency recently explained to me that their budgets this year are so tight, and they have made every efficiency that they can, that they will be forced to reduce the amount of support for the children who do not have an EHCP but who do have additional needs. What is the sense in that, when we know that early intervention leads to better outcomes and lower costs? Before being elected to the House, I ran a charity for young people with Down’s syndrome and their families. We saw at first hand the impact that early intervention can make in building the fundamental skills for life that many of us take for granted—walking, talking and participating in society. Children with Down’s syndrome will always need an EHCP, yet the families still have to go through a laborious process. Many children need a bit of extra help at various points without an EHCP, yet the funding formula also works against them because schools cannot afford to fund the support. As Lily’s mum explained after Lily was denied an EHCP, “The emotional and financial toll is huge, made worse by constant pushback and denial. There’s endless talk of SEND reform, but what about the children like Lily who need help now? Every delay is another failed day, risking long-term harm.” I welcome the investments in education and training outlined by the Chancellor in yesterday’s spending review, but it is not just schools’ walls that are crumbling; the systems within the buildings need just as much care, investment and resource. One headteacher said to me: “Of course teachers want to be paid fairly, but that’s not why so many are leaving the profession. We want better funding for the schools, for the kids.” I conclude not with the numbers but with a quote from Olivia’s mum, a constituent of mine. Olivia is in her 16th month without appropriate educational provision. Her mum said: “I am increasingly fearful for her future. How can she be expected to participate fully in society—to reach her potential, to build independence, to thrive—if she is denied even the most basic right to an education?” The national funding formula must be reassessed and made fit for the future.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Standing order charges are making energy bills unaffordable, particularly for those on lower incomes. What steps are Ministers taking to address this?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity. The Labour manifesto promised “more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it. The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy. France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies. Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I do not agree. To overcome the fear and anxiety that many women face when seeking medical support, we must instead build a society rooted in compassion and centred on safe, supportive healthcare, where such healthcare is treated as part of women’s services, and not treated with suspicion or stigma. One route to decriminalising abortion is through new clause 1, which has been tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland and countries such as France, Ireland, Canada and Australia, where women are not criminalised for abortion. The new clause is backed by End Violence Against Women, Refuge, Rape Crisis England & Wales, and many others. It would not change time limits or legal safeguards, but would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women. As 88% of abortions in England and Wales occur before 10 weeks, the idea that decriminalisation would lead to many more late-term abortions is simply not supported by evidence. At a time when reproductive rights are under threat globally, we must act. Decriminalising abortion is a necessary step towards equality, compassion and justice.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; that is a fear that I share. Nicola went to hospital to seek care, but was instead passed to the police. She was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion, a nightmare that lasted four and half years before she was acquitted unanimously by a jury. These incidents reflect a system that increasingly criminalises women for seeking healthcare, and we cannot let it continue.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for selecting this timely topic for debate. From my experience running a women’s refuge and serving on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have seen how our criminal justice system disproportionately lets down vulnerable women. Since 2020, 100 women and girls have been investigated by police on suspicion of having illegal abortions. Very concerningly, that number is rising. New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council reminds police officers to search women’s houses for drugs related to ending pregnancy and to seize their digital devices to check internet search history and messages to friends and family, and even to access health data through their menstrual cycle and fertility tracking apps—subverting the very tools that are designed to keep us healthy. The guidance goes on to suggest how police officers could bypass the requirements of a court order to access NHS medical records. Who are the suspects that need such interrogation? Often, they are women who have suffered stillbirths, miscarriages and premature labours. Can we honestly say that it is right for police to be targeting women for criminal investigation at a point of such trauma? That is what happened to Sammy. After a traumatic birth, she was resuscitating her newborn baby when seven police officers arrived at her house, ahead of any paramedics or medical staff. Her home became a crime scene, and she became a suspect. The police raided her bins, suspecting that she had illegally taken abortion medication. Her phone, computer and all communication with her partner were blocked by police. She provided forensic samples that did not show the presence of abortion drugs, but despite that, she remained under police investigation for a year, during which time she was allowed only limited supervised contact with her baby. To those in this debate who emphasise the life of the child, I ask, what benefit does such separation from a mother bring to a newborn? Sammy’s story is not an isolated incident; it is part of a disturbing pattern that is creating a culture of fear around women’s reproductive rights. Sophie, a teenager, was arrested in the middle of the night following a police raid on her parents’ home. She was held in custody for 19 hours. Despite her age and vulnerability, she faced two trials, and it took six years for the charge that she ended her own pregnancy to be dropped. Sophie is not the last. We have already heard of the case of Nicola Packer.

• 6 May 2025 · Preventive Healthcare: New Technology · Hansard source

  More

  A piece of technology that already exists that can prevent hydrocephalus is the humble tape measure. The Secretary of State said that he would ask the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct a review of the frequency with which infants’ heads should be measured to allow us to detect hydrocephalus early. The charity Harry’s HAT—Hydrocephalus Awareness Trust—based in my constituency says that this review is not necessary, and that the evidence is already there. Will the Minister meet me and the charity to discuss this further, so that more infants’ lives can be saved?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Health and wealth are two sides of the same coin and we need to invest in both, which is why the delays are a false economy. Maintaining Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital for the next 15 years will cost almost as much as the rebuild, making it a false economy and a categorically bad financial decision as well as a bad health decision. There is no point in investing in a multimillion-pound brand new air filtration system in a building that is falling down. In June 2024, the Prime Minister who was then the Leader of the Opposition visited Basingstoke town but not the hospital. Assurances were given and reported in the Basingstoke Gazette that the hospital would be built by 2030. In February after the announcement, I asked the Prime Minister about the logic of the delay, given that it will clearly be a significant financial burden for taxpayers while continuing to limit healthcare delivery. I was told that the hospital would be built, but not when. This is a clear step backwards. With the exception of the shadow Minister, we all know the situation in which the previous Government left the country, but that is not a reason for economically and medically unsound decisions now. I invite the Minister—or any Minister—to visit Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital with me to understand the full financial and health implications of this decision for local people in North East Hampshire.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are predominantly served by two hospitals: Frimley Park to the east and Basingstoke and North Hampshire to the west. Some 65% of Frimley Park is RAAC concrete, known to be highly unstable, so it is right that it is included in phase 1 of the new hospital programme and prioritised as urgently needing a complete new build. Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital, however, has been moved to phase 3 and building is now scheduled to begin some time between 2037 and 2039, leaving staff and patients to endure the crumbling buildings for another 15 years. That decision was made without a single ministerial visit—not one. However, I have visited the hospital and seen what is needed, so I can tell Ministers about the repairs needed to the ceiling to stop rain coming into patient wards and the windows that cannot open, cannot close or are not double-glazed. I can tell Ministers about the air conditioning and filtration systems that keep the air clean in the hospital’s operating theatres, which are already at their maximum capacity. Replacing those systems will become essential within five years, and there is no physical room to add to what is there. I can tell Ministers about the flooring that connects two important parts of the hospital over a car entrance, which is in a poor state and held together with industrial tape. Patients are being trolleyed across that uneven, unstable flooring on a daily basis. The tape holding the site together is both literal and a metaphor for the state of the system and of hospitals right now in this country. Ministers would know that if they had visited the hospital. One third of the repairs needed are high-risk—not a phrase we want to hear associated with our hospital structures and systems.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Jeremy. We are living in a time marked by increasing polarisation. Teenage boys and girls are drifting apart, driven by an online culture that fills a void where important discussions should be happening. I have spoken to teachers across my constituency, and the picture that they paint is a troubling one. They have reported that the behaviour in schools, particularly from boys, is deteriorating, with a notable disparity in how male and female staff are treated. Teachers in North East Hampshire and across the country are working tirelessly, yet behavioural issues are worsening. Online sexist cultures are manifesting themselves in many ways, including in the form of persistent backchat towards female teachers. High-profile online influencers have found their way to reach boys and young men who are struggling with their identities and masculinity. We must rethink our understanding of masculinity, and what it means to be a man. We must do so in a safe, supportive environment that nurtures healthy development and respect. Feminism is not a dirty word—it is as good for men and boys as it is for women and girls, but that part of the conversation is frequently missing. Worryingly, abusive behaviour within young relationships is increasingly common, and most incidences of online sexual abuse now involve children offending against other children. Some 61% of children and young people also reported that they were unsure and unaware of where to seek support if affected by domestic abuse. Schools are hubs of learning and centres of influence. Children must be able to define their place in the world, understand their identity and feel empowered to be themselves within an environment of support and understanding. Only with that can we expect young people to have the tools to navigate the internet and their real life interactions positively and safely. We must create legislation, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) in her excellent opening remarks that paves the way for a curriculum that prepares—

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  In a statement with significant problems, I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to better military homes, which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Will she clarify how much and by when, and will that commitment include RAF Odiham in my constituency—or is it just for the constituencies that she listed, which happen to have Labour MPs?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that nature and building should go hand in hand, and I hope that the Bill will start to achieve that. Good green and sustainable design works for everyone concerned. Sufficient insulation in homes prevents heat loss and reduces bills and carbon emissions. Solar energy production and proper flood protections are other obvious examples where investment up front pays dividends down the line. A great example in North East Hampshire is Hart district council offices. Since the installation of solar panels on the roof, a phenomenal 57,000 kWh of electricity has been generated each year. Imagine if we put solar panels on every new house that was built. Major issues such as flooding and drainage plague many areas up and down the country. In my constituency, Hartley Wintney high street, Hook and the surrounding areas are frequently flooded because of blocked drains, as surface water cannot drain away effectively after heavy rainfall. Hartley Wintney fire station even had to raise all its electrical sockets higher up the wall because the flooding has been so frequent. Our local businesses are struggling to get sufficient insurance. The Bill should include a binding commitment to the land use framework, which would help to determine where more permanent land use change can occur, to find the optimum balance between food production and ecosystem services such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity. I come again to the question of new houses. We need them and we need them fast, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that our new homes are properly fit for the future. They must be built in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with proper consideration for our food security, biodiversity and carbon footprint. Communities do not mind new homes, but people also want GP appointments, NHS dentists, rural bus services and to be able to drive down roads with no potholes. There is an opportunity to be ambitious here, and it is being missed. I urge the Government to be bolder and to strive for planning that is as committed to the environment, to integrated infrastructure and to our local communities as it is to housing.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member has anticipated my next point. To ensure that development is approached effectively and sustainably, there must be legislation to protect chalk streams. The Government should use the Bill to expand the list of irreplaceable habitats that are severely threatened and include chalk streams in it. Mitigation schemes will not help these unique habitats. They need protection. Unbelievably, this is the second Bill in six months that the Government could have used to protect our precious chalk streams, as the Water (Special Measures) Bill also failed to mention them specifically.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The Government should be more ambitious in the Bill to ensure that building regulations mandate nature-friendly developments to provide sustainable and healthy housing.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is no doubt that we need new homes, but it is abundantly clear from my casework and from doorstep conversations in North East Hampshire—and I am sure in many other places—that the effects of a warming planet and many years of neglected infrastructure are wreaking havoc on our communities. In order to stop the damage, we must look after nature as we build, and ensure a well-thought-out approach to our public services, to integrate new homes and their local environments effectively. It is frustrating to say the least to see Labour removing the space for local decision making and consent. Local people know their area. In North East Hampshire, chalk streams are close to our hearts but far too close to our sewage outlets. There are only around 200 chalk streams left in the world, and two of them are in my constituency. These remarkable, irreplaceable habitats are home to iconic species including otter, kingfisher and salmon. Despite that, they have not been protected—last year alone, chalk streams endured 14,000 hours of sewage discharges. Chalk streams are under threat not just from sewage but from irresponsible developments that promise protection and abandon those promises after planning permission is granted.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely agree. Let us be very clear: this generation of women faced discrimination at work—more discrimination than women today, with a larger gender pay gap, more glass ceilings, fewer promotion opportunities, lower pensions and lower savings. This generation of women did the vast majority of unpaid housework and caring responsibilities, and worked more hours for less pay for their whole lives, only to find that the goalposts were moved at the worst possible moment. The ombudsman’s reports have rightly said that WASPI women should be compensated fairly. As a member of the APPG on state pension inequality for women, I have been part of the calls on the Government to address this injustice. We should not be living in a society in which promises are a campaign tactic abandoned at the first instance of power. We saw Labour MPs meeting many WASPI campaigners and expressing their heartfelt support before July. We know that maladministration occurred and that WASPI women have been harmed by this injustice. It is now time for the Government to act.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before us today, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent opening remarks. In my constituency, there are almost 6,000 women in the age group affected by these pension changes. We have heard that only 43% of women knew that their pension age was changing. That translates to 3,416 women in North East Hampshire who were unaware of the pension changes, which impacted them significantly in the following years. The Government at the time failed to inform women affected by changes to their pension age. As we have heard, many people have harrowing stories. One of my constituents, now in her 70s, was a victim of this maladministration. She is forced to continue working to supplement her income, due to the lack of notice regarding her retirement age. Like many others, had she received clear, timely communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, she would have been able to make informed life choices and plan accordingly. If a private pension provider failed to inform someone about when they could start to receive their pension, that person would rightly expect compensation for decisions made based on incomplete information—in this case, they would be budgeting with the wrong number. The situation should be no different for those affected by Government errors. The Government should be ashamed that they have rejected the financial payouts recommended by the ombudsman. North East Hampshire has one of the most significant gender pay gaps, heightened by the fact that men work disproportionately more in full-time jobs than women. Inequality in salary and employment opportunities then worsens the disparity at the point of state pension. That has led to women being less financially independent and increasingly vulnerable in their later years.