High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for regenerating local high streets and removing unlawful storefronts.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a delight to see so many Members present to talk about this important topic. High streets matter: they are one of the most significant topics in UK society and politics today, because our town centres are a barometer of the vitality of all the areas that we represent, both economically and socially, for good or for ill.

Town centres are changing. There has been a perfect storm: retail habits have changed since e-commerce set in the best part of two decades ago, and social habits have changed as a result. In many areas, we have seen a hollowing out of high streets and a different type of retail moving in, often with different problems. Low-grade retail and the decline in investment in the public realm are significant factors in the vitality of the areas that we represent. The British public have clear opinions: 79% of Brits are concerned about the decline of high streets and town centres, 65% believe that there are not enough shopping options and 68% believe that there are too many vape shops, barber shops, charity shops and mini-marts in their communities.

We have to think about why footfall in retail has declined. There is the effect of internet shopping, which is very much a normal part of life nowadays. We must also acknowledge the increasing costs that businesses face, including business rates, utility bills and rising labour costs. It is a perfect storm: I do not think that anyone across the House would deny that high streets are under probably the most acute pressure in living memory.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in securing this debate, which I suppose is indicative of the crisis that he is talking about. I have secured a similar debate this afternoon on a directly related issue. This demands not only our attention, but immediate Government action, because in 10 years’ time we will not know the high street as we have known it in the past 10 years.

[Bradley Thomas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate later today. He is absolutely right: the pressure and stress that high streets are under mean that, on the current path, they will be unrecognisable in a decade.

High Streets

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will call Gregory Campbell to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and of the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of high streets.

When I was considering a title for this debate, I toyed with “High streets: a future?” or “High streets: is there a future?”, but I settled on something more neutral. We had a debate on a similar topic this morning in which many of us took part, such is the concern in almost every town and city across the United Kingdom.

It is not the case that there is absolute and total dereliction in 100% of town and city centres. Some towns and cities are getting by, but they are the exception, not the rule. Many high streets, unfortunately, have a poor look. In some town centres that I know of, there are shops that have been empty for so long that people have received small grants to paint them as if they were occupied. There is a door front, a window, curtains and some flowers painted to make a passer-by who does not look too closely think that it is an occupied dwelling, when in fact it is an empty shop and has been so for a number of years.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the decade of decline for our high streets, but does he agree that initiatives such as high street rental auctions and Pride in Place are putting money back into them? Does he recognise that those are positive schemes for his high streets and that they need to be made more widely available across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree, and in a few moments I will talk about some of the positive developments, but they are chinks of light, not the answer. I believe that we need to look at this issue much more radically.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Anchor institutions on our high streets, such as banks and post offices, are disappearing. Across the United Kingdom, 7,000 banks have disappeared, including 11 in my constituency, and post offices have disappeared in my constituency too. According to a YouGov poll, 76% of Britons say that access to a physical bank branch in their local area is important to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue is contributing to the decline of high streets and that steps must be taken to ensure that high street regeneration policy reflects the importance of maintaining anchor institutions to sustain economic stability?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree that that is contributing significantly to the downturn.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I concur with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The removal of banks from our high streets and village centres in Westmorland has had a huge impact. The relationship with post offices is important. High street banks have saved about £2 billion every single year by evacuating our town and village centres. For doing their work, post offices receive from the banks merely £350 million a year, less than 20% of that saving. Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) agree that to underpin our post offices, which are the centre of our village and town centres, the banks need to pay more of what they have saved?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree. The roll-out of banking hubs has helped in a small way, but has made only a marginal difference.

The other issue is the difficult problem—or the advantage, as some would see it—of online shopping and its effect on the high street. I go out weekly to distribute my MP business cards on doors in my constituency, in a whole range of areas. On every third or fourth house I see a little Post-it note that says, “Leave the parcel in the garage,” or, “Leave the parcel in the porch.”

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. With reference to the change in the nature of our high street, he is absolutely right that online retail has taken over. Does that not mean that we need to look at a mixed-use offer that takes into account things like housing, the impact of health in the area more broadly and general disadvantage, which have an impact on how high streets look and feel for communities?

[Mr Campbell]

I do not know whether the hon. Member is a mind reader, but I was about to come to that very point. The prevalence of online shopping has dramatically changed the high street. People are free to take advantage of online shopping, but on many occasions it is to the disadvantage of the high street. On numerous occasions, we have heard about things that can help in a small way. For example, urban improvements such as better seating can make town centres more attractive and bring people in. They do help, but they are on the margins.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Truro, the city council has bought a property to convert to commercial and residential use. It is using some of its town deal—what would have been Pride in Place money—to invest in properties and restore some of the flats above shops that have been empty for so long. Does the hon. Member agree that that is progress and that it would be good to have more funding available for that sort of thing?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I agree. When I conclude, I will try to draw some of these threads together into a proposition that I hope the Minister will consider.

Charity shops and vaping shops are now prevalent on many of our high streets. I have sometimes been criticised, unfairly in my view, for being an arch-critic of the BBC. I do not regard myself as an arch-critic of the BBC: I always say that I commend it when it does well and criticise it when it does wrong or shows bias. If I am seeing more reasons to criticise it—well, I will leave people to pass judgment on which is more accurate. I have to say that in the past few months, though, BBC News has been excellent on vaping shops on the high street. It should not have been the BBC that had to do that work, but I am glad that it did.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the BBC investigation work that has been undertaken in recent months, which has exposed a huge amount of organised crime, including child sexual exploitation, money laundering and links to false asylum claims. Given how the fronts of these shops—so many of them are fronts—are tearing down legitimate businesses and making things so difficult for them, is it time to have a central agency to take responsibility, maybe under the guise of something like the national retail police?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree. If we are to see the clampdown that the Home Secretary has outlined, as I hope we do, the problems that we are discussing will not get better in the short term. There will be more vacant shops, because illegal shops will be put out of business. That is a good thing, but we need to ensure that there is no gap and we need to get life back into our town centres.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

We are talking about vacant shops, but there is also a lot of antisocial behaviour on our high streets, which in some cases is largely due to the existence of vacant shops. I was speaking to the headteacher of a school in Glastonbury that is based just off the high street. The children there are already vulnerable; they are being exposed to violence and antisocial behaviour on the way to school, and teachers cannot get into school safely because there are altercations and violent incidents daily. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current arrangements for managing some prolific and repeat offenders are simply not working, and that we need to make our high streets a safer place?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I agree, and I will come on to that point. If we make our high streets more attractive to families, to shoppers and to those who live and work in town centres, the vacuum that enables antisocial behaviour will reduce as we increase the number of people in town centres.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he join me in congratulating Barnsley market, a local market that is leading the way by bringing health services into the town centre, which is driving up footfall and has led to a thriving community? We will be leading a delegation from the all-party parliamentary group on local markets next week, so we can all learn from that example and hopefully feed into the high street strategy.

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I do, and I am glad to hear that. I hope that the Minister can deal with that type of intervention.

I secured a similar debate in Westminster Hall just 18 months ago, but unfortunately things have not improved since then. I believe that what we require is a radical, fundamental overhaul of how we develop our town and city centres. I have listened to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who will presumably be our next Prime Minister, and he has talked about the promise of devolution and more devolution. I believe that that approach offers the opportunity, whether it is in northern England or southern England, for mayors and others involved with the devolution settlement that exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to come together in a format that accepts the need for a radical overhaul of our town centres right across the UK.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given the current pressures on high streets across the UK, including in my constituency of North Down, does the hon. Member agree that everything should be on the table when it comes to supporting small, independent and hospitality businesses, including measures such as VAT and national insurance relief, and expanding the British Business Bank and the local growth fund to back high street start-ups and expansions? Does he also that part of the problem is the growing number of out-of-town supermarkets, which also affects our town centres?

[Mr Campbell]

The hon. Member is right. I agree that edge-of-town and out-of-town retailing are having an impact on city centres and town centres.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Campbell]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who I think is the only hon. Member I have not yet given way to in this debate.

[Carla Lockhart]

“The best till last”—I am sure that was coming. I agree that we need to take a real look at town centres and their problems and issues, but does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest complaint from the businesses that still exist and are still working hard in our town centres is about business rates? He mentioned charity shops; they are rates-exempt. He mentioned online businesses; they do not have business rates to deal with and cope with. Does he agree that a UK-wide look at business rates is needed and that we should really start supporting our businesses in that way?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I agree. Edge-of-town and out-of-town retailers have the advantage in one sense, while the huge multinational online retailers have the advantage in another sense—and they have both put our high streets at a major disadvantage.

I move on to some of the positive contributions that have been made. In Northern Ireland, our own Department for Communities has a Shaping Sustainable Places programme under my colleague Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities. That draws together a range of Departments to try to revitalise town centres and co-ordinate more closely on how that can best be sustainably delivered for the future.

Here in Westminster, along with colleagues, I have been pressing the Government for the past 12 to 18 months to complete the future towns fund, as they now have. As a result, Londonderry and Coleraine—one is entirely in my constituency and the other is partially in it—will get £2 million per year over the next 10 years. That is progress and something of a start, but it must become part of a co-ordinated approach that includes other Departments and some of the local councils that have been mentioned, to radically reassess where we take town councils in the future.

I hope the Minister will agree that discussions are needed between devolved Ministers and their Departments on whether an agreement can be reached about a pilot scheme in the English regions, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to see how to transform town and city centre landscapes—not just over the next year or two, but the next decade or two. If the decline continues, it might not be me back here in 10 years’ time—I probably will not be, or anywhere else for that matter—but someone will be, saying, “When are we going to do something to transform and revitalise our town and city centres?” We need a radical overhaul. I hope the Minister responds positively so that various Government Departments and devolved institutions can co-ordinate to deliver the tangible change that people want.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I must point out that this is our second debate on this subject on the same day, in the same place and with the same Minister, whom I invite to respond. You will say something like what you said earlier, I guess.

Park Home Owners

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing to the Chamber this vital debate on a matter that strikes at the very heart of many of my constituents, and indeed of many people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it concerns retirement and peace of mind. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. As always, I have asks of him, and will come to those in my conclusion.

In Ballyhalbert and Cloughey in my constituency, we have two park home sites. I have had a long working relationship with them and the group association over the years. The residents in my neck of the woods are decent, hard-working people, many of them elderly, who put every penny they have into their homes, but who often find themselves caught in a gap between the legislation we have here in Westminster and what is delivered back home in Northern Ireland. We must be very clear: a home is a home, whether it is built of bricks and mortar or a high-quality residential mobile home on a licensed site.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many parts of Northern Ireland, but especially in my constituency, this is about striking a balance between those who own or rent their mobile homes and the site owners?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend sums up some of the issues. It is a question of getting that balance.

I am worried, as I often am, that our constituents in the Province are being left behind. We have seen the Mobile Homes Act bring protections to those in England and Wales by dealing with those rogue site owners who, frankly, are more concerned with profit than they are with people’s right to live in peace and contentment, but we in Northern Ireland are still waiting for the same robust approach. I know that the Minister is very responsive to the requests of us all. My ask of him is to engage with the Minister back home to ensure that what is happening here will happen for people in Northern Ireland as well.

I will not take the extra minute, Sir Alec, because I am conscious of other Members wanting to speak, but I will highlight three specific points that must be addressed. The first is the 10% commission fee. It is a hidden and heavy burden for an elderly person to face a 10% exit fee just to move into a care home or to be closer to family. We need parity across the United Kingdom in how those fees are regulated. That is my first request of the Minister.

My second request relates to energy costs. Many of my constituents are off-grid and rely on liquefied petroleum gas or supplied electricity. I thank the Government for the warm home discount, but it is often a struggle for those residents to access it. We need a system that is automatic, not one that requires a senior citizen to jump through digital hoops.

Thirdly, on site licensing and enforcement, we need to ensure that local councils in Northern Ireland have the teeth needed to deal with those few site owners who harass or bully residents. A fit and proper persons test must be as meaningful in Comber or Newtownards as it is in Cornwall.

I have highlighted the Northern Ireland question and the role that perhaps the Minister will kindly take on for us in relation to the Minister back home, Gordon Lyons. Will the Minister commit to a meeting or corresponding with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the legislative gaps are closed and that my constituents in Strangford can sleep easy knowing that their homes and rights are protected?

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I welcome the review, the Minister’s response and the general thrust of it. I am glad to see the list of people who responded at the back of the review. We responded on behalf of the Unionist community, and it is a good job that we did as no others seem to have done so.

On political donations in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware of Sinn Féin being able to funnel money from the United States into the Republic and then into Northern Ireland. That is an issue that we raised and it is itemised on page 25. It is a concern that many people have. Sinn Féin already gets millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in representative money for not coming here, and in addition to that, it is now getting several millions from the USA via Dublin and into Northern Ireland.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s engagement with the review. I hear his concerns. It is important that we continue to engage so that those concerns can be heard and, where appropriate, addressed.

Community Cohesion

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to have the opportunity to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for allowing us to discuss the important issue of community. I may be giving the hon. Gentleman a big head, but may I say what a joy he brings in his contributions in this House, both in Westminster Hall and the Chamber? He is always soft-spoken, and his voice is filled with compassion. That is important, especially with this subject matter.

In Northern Ireland, we have moved beyond where we were in the past. I am a very proud representative of Strangford, and I am privileged and honoured that my constituents have chosen me to be their MP on a number of occasions—Members will be aware of that already. However, most of that pride does not come from me, but from the people I represent, and I want to speak about them. Although we have a tainted history of anger and violence, that does not adequately represent who we really are.

I represent a community that proudly upholds the Northern Ireland tradition of being the most generous charity givers per capita. We do that without coercion or nudging, because we are generous people. I represent people who have the highest amount of kinship fostering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is another example of what we do. We care about people and we want to help them. The programmes run by churches and community groups are examples that should be highlighted in this place— I am going to do that, because that is about the people we represent, who make the community and the place we live just that bit better.

Northern Ireland is a place of immense strength, resilience and character. That is found in every community, from the beautiful Portaferry at the tip of the Ards peninsula where I live, to the heart of the constituency in Newtownards and down the other side of the lough to Ballynahinch and Spa. Ours is a community shaped by faith—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I say that very sincerely. It is also shaped by family, hard work and deep-rooted traditions. Where once there would have been division over faith, I do not see that ever happening today like it happened in the past.

I am a Democratic Unionist party MP, and we firmly believe in the Union—in Northern Ireland’s proud place within the United Kingdom. We want to be part of it, and we maintain that as part of who we are. We believe in strengthening the bonds between the people who share this land—the Scots, the Welsh, the English and ourselves.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised the issue of balancing different opinions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK, we always need to keep at the heart of what we say and do the balance that has to be struck between people, however stringent and difficult the circumstances might be? We need to understand those who may have opposing opinions, and try to ensure that life goes on and that we make progress for everybody, whatever their differences.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague has summed that up incredibly well. That is exactly how I feel about where we are, and the community that we are trying to build for our children and grandchildren. I have six grandchildren, and I want to build a future for them—I want to build a future for every grandchild, by the way, not just mine, because everybody has a share in where we are, and that is where we are coming from.

Community cohesion is not about erasing identity, diluting culture or pretending that our history does not matter. Northern Ireland works best where identity is respected: British identity, Ulster identity, and indeed the Irish identity of those who cherish it. Mutual respect must be the foundation on which we build our future. The Belfast agreement created a framework where differences could be managed peacefully and democratically. That framework must always operate on the principles of consent, fairness and parity of esteem, not on the erosion of one tradition to appease another. That is not about cohesion, resilience or moving forward. I believe with all my heart that we must respect each other.

Cohesion cannot grow where there is imbalance; it requires confidence that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is secure, which I believe it is. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have said that very clearly, which we should respect and understand—as did the Conservative party, in fairness. It requires confidence that the position is secure and that decisions are made with cross-community support, and it requires that no section of society feels sidelined. Bringing everybody forward is not always easy; it is incredibly hard at times, but if we focus on the goal we can achieve that together.

Strengthening community cohesion also means strengthening opportunity. Too many working-class communities—Unionist and nationalist alike—feel left behind. Economic regeneration, job creation, investment in apprenticeships and support for local businesses are not just economic policies; they are cohesion policies, and part of what we need to move forward. When people have dignity in work and hope for their children, division loses its grip. People are more relaxed, more positive and more confident about the future.

We must also deal honestly with the past. That does not mean endless relitigation of history, nor does it mean selective memory. It means fairness, proportionality and recognition of the suffering experienced by all victims of terrorism, including the thousands murdered by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. True reconciliation requires truth, but it also requires balance. Community cohesion is not achieved through slogans; it is built day by day in churches, community halls, sports clubs and businesses and in the home itself, where the family is centre of the home. It is built when neighbours look out for one another, and when cultural expression is carried out with respect.

I sincerely believe that our community is something to be proud of. We are stronger together and can be an example to many other communities in United Kingdom, showing how funding and programmes can build foundations that change mindsets. That has been a long process. I lived through the troubles, having been born a long time ago, being older than anyone in this room without a doubt.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I don’t know about that.

Homelessness: Funding

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Vickers, for the chance to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading today’s debate. He always leads on homelessness issues, whether in this Chamber or the other, and we thank him for all that he does.

Our housing provision differs across the United Kingdom: in the devolved nations it is different from the provision here in England. One issue I must highlight is the funding that we receive via the block grant, which is used to support the most central services in Northern Ireland. I believe that we need to improve the adequacy of that funding.

I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) made about veterans. Last winter, I sat out for about an hour in the cold weather—it was enough for me—with a veteran who was trying to highlight the very important issue of homelessness for veterans. I look forward to the Minister telling us what will be done across the United Kingdom.

In the Assembly back home, the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has announced an additional £2.5 million funding package for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to boost homelessness prevention services. Homelessness across Northern Ireland is rife; the stats are shocking. There is not a day in my office back home in Newtownards, or indeed in the Ballynahinch office, when we do not have homelessness brought to us as a constituency issue—especially within Ards and North Down, which continues to be such a popular area to live in. The figures speak for themselves. In Ards and North Down, 1,233 households are presenting as homeless and 898 households have been accepted as full-duty applicants; in other words, they were in priority need.

We hear so often what “homeless” means, but full-duty applicants are the priority and in many cases they have not intentionally made themselves homeless. People buy houses over the years, rent them out and then want to release their capital and be better off. We cannot blame them for doing that, but it does put pressure on homelessness teams.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems in Northern Ireland and across the UK is the lack of affordable homes? Many families are finding that that is the difficulty with getting on the housing ladder, and there are social housing issues as well.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been presented with those cases in my office many times. People want to get a mortgage and cannot get one, because of the price of houses in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, they are the highest in all Northern Ireland; indeed, they are comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom.

I put on the record my thanks to my local housing team and particularly to the manager Eileen Thompson, to Irene May and to the many others who go the extra mile every day to help those in need. We do what we can with what we have, but because of the skyrocketing demand in my constituency and across the whole country, funding is not stretching far enough. Some 29,000 households in Northern Ireland have homeless status, and the policy approaches are not sufficient to meet the scale of demand. Although the Northern Ireland Executive receives money through the block grant, which is allocated accordingly, the figures show how much of an issue homelessness is, and there is more that we can do on home building.

My ask to the Minister—it is not her responsibility where the money goes, but maybe she can pass this on to the right person in the Cabinet—is a commitment to social housing delivery across the whole country and better integration with counterparts in the devolved nations, to ensure that we can support those who are in desperate need of safe and secure housing.

It is essential that Westminster provide stronger and more consistent support through fairer and more responsive Barnett consequentials. We have argued for many years that the Barnett consequentials do not reflect Northern Ireland’s needs. If they did, perhaps we could address the issue of temporary accommodation and homelessness, keep pace with demand and deliver long-term solutions. We must take the necessary steps to make the United Kingdom a safe and secure place to call home.

Ending Homelessness

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree with me that, difficult as it might be, the key to the problem that he has correctly outlined is the availability of lower-cost, good quality social housing? We must aim to expand that as quickly and successfully as possible in the next few years.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the hon. Member anticipates something I will say later in my speech. I have long advocated that we need to build 90,000 affordable homes for social rent each year to meet the demand.

As co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to our new report, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”. The report brings together evidence from across the country, from local and combined authorities, charities, service providers, academics and, crucially, people who have lived experience of homelessness themselves. The report distils a complex problem into three simple but essential pillars that any effective strategy must deliver: first, preventing homelessness wherever possible; secondly, rapidly rehousing people who still need help; and thirdly, improving support for those experiencing the most severe forms of homelessness.

The best way to end homelessness is to prevent it happening in the first place. Almost everyone with lived experience who contributed to our APPG’s work identified a point at which their homelessness could have been prevented. That is a missed opportunity where timely help could have made all the difference. Prevention should not be a political issue; it is simply common sense and morally right, socially responsible and economically wise. Research by Shelter found that one in 10 people in temporary accommodation had to give up work due to their housing situation. That statistic alone should galvanise us to act earlier, before people lose not only their homes but their jobs, stability and self-confidence in a downward spiral.

Through my private Members’ Bills, I have worked to put prevention at the heart of our response. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 focused on preventing people becoming homeless and presented the largest and most comprehensive changes to the rights of homeless people for more than 39 years. Fundamentally, its purpose is to ensure that everyone at risk of being homeless or who is currently homeless is legally entitled to meaningful help from their local authority, regardless of their current status.

Previously, local authorities had been entitled to assist only those who were deemed a priority and at crisis point. That excluded the majority of people, including almost all of those who were single. The Act also addressed the significant lack of meaningful advice and assistance, which more often than not in the majority of cases was not tailored to the individual’s needs and requirements.

The Act implemented a duty on specified public bodies to refer any person whom they believed was at risk of homelessness within the next 56 days to the relevant housing department. That helps to direct appropriate and efficient support and resources to those in need and prevent them from sleeping rough before it is too late. The 56 days marks a significant extension; previously only those at risk of homelessness in the first 28 days would potentially receive some help. The extension to 56 means that people have a longer opportunity to relieve their situation.

I am pleased to say that, in the first year of implementation, the Homelessness Reduction Act prevented 37,000 people from becoming homeless. It continues to be just as effective today, some six years later. In the first year alone, an additional 60,000 people who were previously ineligible for homeless support were assisted in getting off the streets and into appropriate accommodation. That is a rise of almost 50% on the previous year to the Act’s implementation. Today, I am proud to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act has prevented more than 1.7 million people from becoming homeless, with more than 777,000 now in stable and secure long-term housing.

I am pleased that the Act has helped thousands avoid the trauma of homelessness, but the truth is that we can and must go further. Across our APPG’s evidence sessions, we repeatedly heard of cases where other public services missed crucial opportunities to step in: hospitals discharging patients on to the street; jobcentres overlooking signs of distress; prisons releasing people with no plan for where they would go next. Those are not isolated incidents; they are systemic failures. Recent analysis from the Institute for Government found that discharges from public institutions now account for almost half the recent rise in homelessness applications. If we are serious about tackling homelessness we cannot leave the burden solely on housing departments. It must be a whole-system effort, covering health, justice, education, welfare and local government. We must all work together to stop people falling through the cracks.

Prevention is not only compassionate; it is cost-effective. When someone keeps their home, they recover faster after illness, they are half as likely to reoffend and they find it easier to get back into work. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to discuss how she intends to embed prevention firmly at the centre of the Government’s homelessness strategy?

Even with the best prevention measures, there will always be times when homelessness cannot be avoided. When that happens, our goal must be to get people back into stable, affordable homes as quickly as possible. That requires a clear, long-term commitment to increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. I have long argued that if we are serious about ending homelessness we must build more homes that people can actually afford.

The Secretary of State’s recent commitment to delivering more social and affordable homes is welcome, but words must now turn into action, and that delivery must be targeted where the need is greatest. Too often, affordable homes are built in the wrong places or at rent levels that are out of reach for those most in need. I ask the Minister to confirm that she will work closely with the Housing Minister to ensure that the long-term plan for housing delivers social homes where they are most needed, and that people experiencing homelessness are given fair and equal access to them, because rapid rehousing works only when the homes are there for people to move into.

We must also ensure that temporary accommodation truly is temporary—a stepping-stone, not a dead end. I have met families who have spent years moving between short-term lets, B&Bs and converted offices, never knowing where they will be next. It is impossible to rebuild their lives under those conditions. A genuine rapid rehousing model backed by adequate social housing can break this cycle. It restores stability, improves health and education outcomes and reduces long-term costs. We owe it to those families, and to the taxpayers footing the bill, to make that a reality.

The third and final pillar of the APPG’s framework is support for those whose homelessness could not be prevented, and who need more than housing alone to rebuild their lives. Supported housing plays a crucial role in that effort. I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 after receiving extensive evidence of rogue landlords exploiting vulnerable people and the taxpayer. Rogue unscrupulous landlords were setting up supported housing schemes and claiming public money through housing benefit, while providing little or no care whatsoever. Devastatingly, those abuses were not just financial ones; they destroyed lives. Through the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee I saw how deeply that issue runs.

The challenge now is to strike the right balance: driving out the rogue providers while protecting the good ones, and ensuring that vulnerable residents are not made homeless again as a result of reform. That is why I agreed that the powers within the 2023 Act should be subject to consultation so that we can get this right; but we are two years on from Royal Assent and those powers have yet to see the light of day. I ask the Minister to provide an update on three points.

When will the Government publish detailed guidance and timescales for implementing that, including funding for councils, strategic needs assessments and licence fees? What steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities are not misusing their powers to close providers down through housing benefit reviews without proper care for the residents’ welfare? Will the Government confirm that domestic abuse refuges and dispersal providers will not be required to register every individual property separately? That is an administrative burden that would put vital services at risk.

Beyond regulation, however, lies a deeper issue: the collapse of support capacity. Across all our APPG evidence sessions we heard from charities, councils and service providers struggling to meet the growing complexity of people’s needs. The cuts to local support services over the past decade have hollowed out the safety net, leaving too many people without help at the moment they need it most. I have long been a champion of Housing First, a model that provides stable housing alongside intensive wraparound support. The evidence for its effectiveness is overwhelming, yet too many areas lack the funding to deliver it at scale.

When I worked on the supported housing Act, it became clear that rogue operators had thrived precisely because legitimate, well-regulated support had been stripped back. If we want to eliminate exploitation and end homelessness we must rebuild the foundations of proper support. I ask the Minister: what discussions is she having with colleagues across Government about addressing the chronic underfunding of support services? Will the forthcoming homelessness strategy include clear measures to ensure that everyone, regardless of their needs, can access the right help to rebuild their lives?

Homelessness is not inevitable. It is not a natural part of modern life. It is the product of policy choices, systems that fail to intervene soon enough and services that are no longer adequately resourced to meet the need. We have an opportunity and a duty to end that. This is a moment to bring together not only Government Departments, but local authorities, charities, faith groups and communities to deliver on our shared ambition that everyone should have a safe and secure place to call home.

At oral questions last week, the Minister said she never knowingly misses an opportunity to meet an APPG. In that spirit, I warmly invite her to join us at the APPG for ending homelessness annual general meeting, which will take place between 1 pm and 2 pm on 11 November, where she can discuss these issues further—and of course we will benefit from her words at the meeting. I place on record my sincere thanks to the APPG secretariat—Rosie, Matt, Jasmine and all the team at Crisis—for their outstanding work in co-ordinating our efforts, and to the 47 parliamentarians and 27 sector organisations serving on the steering group. Their commitment, expertise and compassion drives this agenda forward every single day.

This debate is not just an opportunity to restate our concern; it must be a catalyst for action. Homelessness is not inevitable. It is solvable. The test of any Government and any Parliament is whether we have the courage and compassion to solve it. Let us make sure that no child grows up without a place to call home, and that no person has to face another winter on the streets. Let us act together to end homelessness once and for all.

Black Country Day

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing the debate, but on the magnificent job she is doing in selling the Black Country to Westminster Hall and the wider community. Does she agree that her celebrating Black Country Day and others celebrating other days demonstrates the diversity across the United Kingdom? In my patch last weekend, we had a sporting and cultural celebration, with the Open at Royal Portrush golf club and other events. Diversity across the United Kingdom ought to be celebrated in the very way that she is alluding to in this debate.

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is so important that each of our areas is celebrated for what they are—what they are now, what they have been and what they could be—and that we take note of the diversity of each of our areas.

This United Kingdom is made up of places, regions, identities, cities, towns and communities. Each deserves its opportunity—its day in the sun and its things that it is special and unique at. Each place deserves its own local pride. It is so important that we come together today to talk about the Black Country. The key things I want to talk about are about the way that our industrial heritage shapes our future. Some people might talk about their regional identity day and offer the best place to get a pint, the best regional delicacies or the most beautiful vistas.

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government.

I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate.

Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the devolved issue, which is slightly different in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of GB, there has been a planning proposal in my area for about seven years to develop a good-quality hotel close to where the Open golf championship will take place next week. That has been delayed not by problems, complaints or objections from local residents, but by a politically inspired complaint extraneous to the constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the issue in a more holistic way, to try to get development that most people can agree with and want to see progressed as quickly and effectively as possible?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making.

The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent:

“Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.”

The Government believe:

“Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.”

They also state:

“The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.”

This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it?

What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account.

Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.

Disadvantaged Communities

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for setting the scene and for her enthusiasm and energy about the subject, which was evident in her speech. I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Sir Roger, but I will keep within two minutes and not take any extra time.

There are areas across the UK that are undoubtedly disadvantaged and that must be urgently addressed. Northern Ireland still faces complex challenges across many areas of life, including health, education and poverty, not to mention underlying historical factors, so it is great to be speaking in this debate. Poverty rates in Northern Ireland are a massive problem: the Department for Communities states that 14% of working-age adults are in relative poverty and 12% are in absolute poverty.

Among pensioners, poverty increased from 13% in 2020 to 16% in 2022. I say this with kindness to the Minister: the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment grieved us greatly. There are also health and education inequalities, where outcomes are lower in disadvantaged or deprived areas.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On lower educational attainment areas, does my hon. Friend agree that young men in particular find it difficult to go back to education after leaving school, and that apprenticeships can be used to address poverty in the areas that he is describing?