High Streets

Debate between John Hayes and Gregory Campbell

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Immigration Reforms

Debate between John Hayes and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right. The blame for all this should not be laid exclusively in the hands of the Labour party or Labour Governments. Successive Governments have administered a regime that has been out of tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of the population, who know what I have said is true. For the hon. Gentleman is right to say, too, that those successive Governments have allowed unsustainable levels of net migration.

If we look at the history, however, we see it was once quite different. In 1967 net migration was minus 84,000, in 1987 it was just 2,000, and in 1997 it was 48,000. It is in my time in this House—although, I hasten to add, not at my behest—that migration has soared, and we have begun to accept that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people can be added to our population without taking account of the fact that that brings additional pressure on public services. That is not to say that many of those people do not make a positive contribution to our country—of course they do, in all kinds of ways—but to ignore the facts in terms of, for example, the growth in demand for housing is a dereliction of duty of which politicians across the political spectrum are guilty.

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

On the issue of population change, it would appear that in the past 25 years the population of the United Kingdom has increased by over 10 million, while our economy has been largely stagnant. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most people agree that there is a distinct difference between those who come from around the world to contribute to our society, pay their taxes, help the NHS and work, and those who come illegally? That distinction is often lost in this debate.

[Sir John Hayes]

Illegal migration, of course, is of a different order. Illegal immigration is about breaching borders. A nation means very little unless it has territorial integrity. What is the purpose of a nation that has porous borders? Indeed, it barely deserves to be described as such. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the way our borders have been breached, with impunity, over time.

Bear in mind that nine out of 10 of the people who arrive in dinghies are men, and 75% are under the age of 40. Let us be clear about who is coming, and for what purpose. Many are economic migrants and, frankly, given where they come from, if we came from those places, we might come, too, because we would see a better life here and want that life for our families. I do not criticise the individuals; I criticise a system that permits that level of illegal migration.

Legal migration matters because of its scale and its character. It has led to a change in our society at a pace that many people find it impossible to comprehend, still less to cope with, so it is time that the political establishment, populated as it is by the liberal bourgeoisie—