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?

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

On that point, unfortunately, it is not a golden age for churches everywhere in the United Kingdom. We need to do more to highlight what those buildings offer, because many people take them for granted and put them to one side, simply because of their age and historical context.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

To put the situation in Egypt into perspective, each church, irrespective of denomination, has the police and army on guard 24 hours a day. In 2013, Christian churches were burned and Christians were murdered. Today, however, the opportunities have changed, and there will be a new church in upper Cairo.

In Jordan, churches and mosques have been working hand in hand to support Syrian refugees by offering shelter, food and education. Those interfaith efforts are rooted in the power of religious communities, and the spaces that those communities occupy serve as a powerful reminder of what is possible when freedom of religion or belief is respected and protected. That includes ensuring that places of worship remain accessible, protected and supported.

I end on a Scripture text, as I often do in these debates, because I think it is important. Isaiah 56:7 says:

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

That is not just a call to protect buildings; it is a call to safeguard the freedom to worship. Every individual, regardless of faith, should be able to worship freely without fear of persecution or obstruction. When such places are attacked, it is an assault on the fundamental right to practise our faith, to live according to our beliefs and to do so without fear. Let us continue to support efforts to ensure that churches and other religious buildings remain places of peace, welcome and faith. Let us speak out for those whose right to worship in safety is still denied.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I know of Leigh’s great creativity, not least at the Spinners Mill, which my hon. Friend used to run. From our perspective, we want this to be a reset of the way in which central Government work with local communities to unleash that creativity. As I have said, I think this was seen by the Opposition as revelatory, but I believe the people of Leigh, rather than me, should make decisions about the future of Leigh.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is indeed very welcome in Northern Ireland, where it affects Coleraine and Londonderry in my patch. The 10-year period is particularly welcome as it allows for planning and for proposals to be put in place. Can he assure us that, towards the end of this Parliament, we will review the plan to see if it is possible to develop it and to become very focused on trying to get benefit for our constituents?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, this is a really important point. Plans do take time to gear up, and there may not be a uniform spend of exactly £2 million every year. There may be some flexibilities, which is why I think such a length of time is valuable. However, after the fourth year we will do a stocktake, because we do not want places spinning their wheels and building up a huge backlog of funding. Plans have to be realistic, so by the end of this Parliament, exactly as the hon. Member says, we will have a full stocktake.

Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social housing tenants and antisocial behaviour.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Let us imagine a Government who believe that a council house should be a privilege, not a right, and that people have to be of good standing and in full-time employment to secure the keys. Let us imagine a Government who support the idea that a council house should be given on suitability rather than a need for social housing. Let us then imagine that same Government supporting the idea that people should keep their council house in good order: keep it decorated, keep it well maintained, do the garden, empty the bins, and make sure that their families do not cause trouble on the street. There was such a Government who believed in all that: the 1940s Clement Attlee Government.

Clement Attlee built over 1 million homes in our great country, and all the things I have just mentioned were beliefs of the Labour Government at the time. But if we fast forward 80 years I think Captain Clem would be turning in his grave after looking at some of the council estates up and down the country, such as Carsic estate, Leamington estate, Coxmoor estate in Ashfield, and estates over in Mansfield such as Bull Farm and Ladybrook, where we have families creating mayhem and misery. People call them “feral families” in my neck of the woods. There are people who cause problems on every single council estate throughout Mansfield and Ashfield, and it is a big problem. In this place we have the power to sort that out. I did try under the last Government, but it fell on deaf ears.

Before I came to this place, one of the main complaints that I got—I am sure many hon Members will agree—was about antisocial behaviour on council estates, which destroys and ruins lives. Most of us MPs, I imagine, live in nice houses; we have security, CCTV and panic alarms. Some of us live in nice big posh pads in gated communities—it is all right for us. We do not have to go home each night and put up with horrible, nuisance, criminal behaviour.

Let us imagine coming home after a hard day’s work at the factory, as many people in Ashfield do, and all we can hear is swearing, verbal threats, intimidation, shouting, screaming, outrageous noises—sounds a bit like a Labour Cabinet meeting. Joking aside, that is happening in every constituency throughout our great country. Let us imagine that we put up with that behaviour when we get home from a hard day’s graft. We go to bed and the noise continues. We can hear music playing and the idiots from across the road revving their motorbikes up and down the street. We open the bedroom window in the summer and the stench of weed comes wafting in. Then we manage to get a few hours’ sleep.

At 6 o’clock the alarm clock goes off and those idiots are just about going to bed, because they have been up all night creating mayhem, causing crime, and being complete nuisances. Yet when we get up in the morning to go to work—to do a shift; to do our seven days to pay our taxes—we are paying for those yobs, those idiots, to live in their social housing. We pay for their rent and benefits, and we wonder why: “Why are we doing this? Why can’t these people live by our rules? Why can’t they integrate? Why can’t they live our way of life?”

Many years ago—I am going back about 30 years—Ashfield district council had a brainwave. We had one particular street on the Carsic council estate that was notorious for antisocial behaviour, crime and poor behaviour. The council put all the nuisance tenants on one street. I am not saying that was a solution, but that is what it did. So when anything kicked off with any crime, the police went straight to one street and nine times out of 10 they knew where the culprits were.

Then the Labour council had a brainwave: it decided to take every single nuisance family off the street, spread them around the estate and put them on different streets. It thought that was a good idea. It thought that the good behaviour of the surrounding streets would encourage those nuisance tenants to be good tenants, to be good neighbours, to integrate and to respect their neighbours, but the opposite happened.

Just a few months after, we realised that every single street on that estate was having problems with antisocial behaviour, so the council had taken the problem from one street and spread it out to every single street on the estate. It was a complete failure, and our police and councillors could do very little about it because they are not backed up by the courts. When we get a nuisance tenant in Ashfield, for example, the courts sometimes carry out a lengthy investigation. They tell the complainants, “Keep a diary,” and give them diary sheets for about two years until they are fed up to the back teeth of filling them out, and eventually they just stop complaining.

In 2022, a Government survey showed that 26%—nearly one in three—of social housing tenants suffer from antisocial behaviour. That is a disgrace in this country. A 2018 report by Nottingham Trent University said that social housing tenants are 30% more likely to see antisocial behaviour, crime, drug dealing and so on.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an issue that is exceptionally important in working-class areas. Does he agree that those who suffer most from the problem are those who live cheek by jowl with the very tenants he is talking about? It is working-class tenants in social housing, aspiring to a better life for them and their children, who suffer the most and are crying out for help and assistance to solve the problem.

[Lee Anderson]

I could not put it any better myself. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is the aspiring, decent, hard-working, working-class families who need a bit of a leg up. They get social housing—a council house—and they want to do the right thing; maybe at one stage they will actually buy the house. They put a shift in: mum and dad go to work, the kids behave themselves, but next door or across the road they have a nuisance family who are completely ruining their lives. That affects their mental health and it is absolutely shocking.

Antisemitic Offences

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of increases in anti-Semitic offences.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I will begin by reminding colleagues that 7 October saw the biggest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the holocaust. The number of Jewish people currently displaced within Israel is the largest since the holocaust. In response to this, antisemitic incidents worldwide have soared.

Since 7 October, Auschwitz-Birkenau has been called an “embarrassment to humanity”. “Heil Hitler” has been shouted at Jewish students in the UK. Protests have included shouts to “burn the Jews” on the streets of London. The hats of Jewish men have been thrown off them in our capital, and menorahs have been attacked. We have seen threats from a professor to blow up the Jewish Labour Movement conference. University societies have championed “the resistance”, glorified Palestinian “martyrs” and denied the murder and rape of Israelis at Nova music festival. Synagogues have been targeted and threatened, Jewish schools have been attacked, and Jewish businesses have been vandalised.

In Bristol, “Free Palestine” was shouted at visibly Jewish men walking to a Sabbath lunch. In Leeds, a Jewish university footballer was called a “big nose Jew” by a member of the opposing team. In Manchester, a Jewish school was sent a letter saying

“warning your school is being targeted, No one is safe, no one should support killers, Palestine forever”.

In London, the Wiener Holocaust Library, a great organisation named after Lord Finkelstein’s grandfather, who escaped the Nazis, had “Gaza” spray-painted on its sign. In my area of the west midlands, a swastika was painted on a bridge, and a curry house announced its full support of Hamas. I thank West Midlands police for its support over the last few days in dealing with localised incidents incredibly fast.

That is by no means an exhaustive list; rather it is just a small insight to the Jewish experience in Britain over the last few months. Dr Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust describes antisemitism as a

“light sleeper lying just beneath the surface of society, ready to raise its head whenever the opportunity arises”.

These worrying statistics make clear the disturbing reality of the current situation.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on the timeliness of her debate. Does she agree that there is not much that unites the far right and the hard left, but what does seem to unite them—for whatever reason that mystifies me, and possibly her as well—is their innate hatred of Jewish people?

[Nicola Richards]

The hon. Member is of course right.

Around the world, we have also seen arson attacks on synagogues in Germany, Tunisia and Armenia. In Canada, Jewish buildings were firebombed and Jewish religious schools were shot at. Terrorist plots against Jewish targets have been foiled in Germany, Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands and Brazil. Israeli flags were burnt outside synagogues in Spain and Sweden. In Vienna, part of the Jewish cemetery was set alight and swastikas were painted on walls. Jewish homes were marked by antisemitic graffiti in Paris and Berlin. In the US, a man fired shots outside a synagogue, and declared “Free Palestine” to the police who arrested him. In Russia, a mob stormed an airport looking for Jewish passengers to attack. A Jewish American, Paul Kessler, was killed by a pro-Palestinian protester in Los Angeles. A holocaust memorial in Berlin was defaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Thank you for calling me. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for leading today’s debate. She and I spoke in the Members’ canteen today. She said, “I suppose you will be there,” and I said, “I certainly will.” I ran the whole way from Horseferry Road, where I was meeting the Transport Minister, to be here on time, because I told the hon. Lady that I would do my best to be here. For a guy of a certain vintage, I am not sure whether that was a good idea.

It is good to see the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety in his place. I look forward to hearing what he will say. He has always been positive in his response to these debates, and he encapsulates our concerns and requests. I also look forward to the contributions of the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), two hon. Ladies with whom I have had many debates. Their contributions will mirror what we all say; I am positive about that.

When we look at this important issue, especially this month, in which we celebrate Holocaust Memorial Day and recognise the devastation that the Jewish community has been subject to in the past, it saddens me—it saddens us all—to see that across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, we have seen a torrent of antisemitic attacks, more recently throughout the war on Israel. It is great to be here as a friend of Israel, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I were when we were both on the Northern Ireland Assembly. We were in the Friends of Israel group there, and we are pround and privileged to be friends of Israel today in the House of Commons.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was absolutely right in what she said, and I agree with it—I was nearly going to start cheering, so I was. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those of the Christian faith, those of other faiths, and those with no faith, because we believe in our hearts that everyone who has a religious belief has a right to express it. The Jewish people have a right to express theirs, without any fear of threat or hindrance whatsoever.

[Mr Campbell]

On the issue of freedom of religious belief, does my hon. Friend agree that the protests, which get out of hand more than occasionally, are based on a false premise, and on misinformation peddled on social media? For example, in Israel there are hundreds of mosques, and freedom of religion for Muslim people to go to them. That is in sharp contrast with the very low number of synagogues in some of the adjoining Arab nation states. Those facts need to be spelled out, so that people have correct, factual information before they embark on any type of protests, which sometimes end up being violent.

[Jim Shannon]

Often—indeed, always—my hon. Friend brings forward very serious points. In my major town of Newtownards, we have a mosque. My second son grew up with the young boys from the mosque. We welcome that, and we speak up for them, and I am pleased to have the mosque in my town of Newtownards.

I attended an event in the synagogue in Belfast some time ago. I will speak about this issue quickly, because others have referred to it. There was a full house of people there, including some students. I sat beside a young student, and I said, “Tell me this: how are things in Queen’s University in Belfast?” That was where she attended. She told me that she felt threatened by some elements, but not by Queen’s University staff members—its policy is absolutely clear that there is to be none of that. However, there were threats, and I focus on them, from students of a different political opinion. She clearly felt threatened.

At times of conflict between countries, there are always religious and cultural tensions, with some communities feeling threatened and frightened to live in their own country. At the outbreak of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I received calls and emails in my office about an incident that occurred at the city hall in Belfast. There were pictures and videos going around on social media of Lasair Dhearg activists—those of a nationalist opinion—projecting on to city hall an image of Hamas fighters paragliding into Israel, alongside the words “smash the Zionists”. I want my police service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to make those people accountable for their actions. A section of the Jewish community contacted local representatives stating that they felt frightened—I felt frightened for them—and that the antisemitic language used threatened them. We reported that to the police as a hate crime, and thankfully the projections stopped, because the police acted properly and without much more correspondence from me.

Further to that, in North Down, a neighbouring constituency, a local Bangor Central councillor had incidents of antisemitic hate language scribbled on a local park bench reported to him. That is completely unnecessary and threatening, and it gives the local area such a bad look. It could have been left for children of all ages to see. There are those who think that they can do things and get away with them—no, they cannot. Let us make them accountable.

We usually see a string of attacks, or certainly an increase in them, when issues are going on across the world, but those attacks are often inflicted on minorities in our communities, further isolating them and causing a feeling of fright. I have heard of so many attacks recently, especially on the mainland. I am so sad to hear of the antisemitic attack on the office of the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark)—that is disgraceful. There is absolutely no place for that kind of behaviour in our society. I am so pleased that the police took swift action in response. I am quite sure that the Minister encouraged the police to take that strong action.

Antisemitic crime in the UK has risen sharply amid the renewed conflict in Gaza, with 1,000 incidents logged by the Jewish charity Community Security Trust. What is taking place is just astounding. The trust works closely with police at local, regional and national level on joint patrols in Jewish areas, training classes and exercises, and exchanging antisemitic incident data, and in numerous advisory roles. As many will be aware, regional integration is so important to me and my colleagues.

I conclude with this, Ms Vaz, because I am conscious that you asked me to be fair to the other speakers, and I will be. There is no place in society for racially motivated groups who use threat and terror to achieve their aim. A just and harsh punishment must be implemented to ensure that these crimes do not go by with a mere slap on the wrist. I thank Members for their correspondence, for their comments today and for all they have done on behalf of my constituents in Newtownards and my constituency of Strangford. I support what the hon. Member for West Bromwich East has said, and I look forward very much to what the Minister will say to encourage us on behalf of our constituents.

Renewable Energy Providers: Planning Considerations

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhan Baillie]

I think this is part of the problem. I love parish councils—they often follow the real detail of planning applications and have battles on a day-to-day basis—but while what the hon. Member proposes sounds very worthy and important, what we want is not statements but the mechanisms. At the moment, we have local authorities blaming the Government and the Government saying local authorities have the power, and local people are caught in the middle. I am happy to work with him to look at the NPPF—we know we are getting a new draft; it has been too slow and we need that information soon—but I want to avoid any more well-meaning rhetoric and get to the bottom of how we get some of these projects over the line. That is really important.

Going back to solar tracking, planning applications are getting rejected. Few people can afford to pay for an expensive planning consultant, and they obviously do not want to engage in local long-standing appeals. The Government planning portal on solar planning regulations makes no reference to solar tracking systems because the technology was not available when the regs were published.

I and Melissa Briggs from Bee Solar have done our best to raise awareness. We have written to endless Ministers and Secretaries of State, from even before I became the Member of Parliament for Stroud. The current position is as follows:

“The installation of solar panels and equipment on residential buildings and land may be ‘permitted development’ with no need to apply to the Local Planning Authority for planning permission.”

At that point, we think, “Woo-hoo! We can get there”, but then it goes on:

“There are, however, important limits and conditions, detailed on the following pages, which must be met to benefit from these permitted development rights”—

and the list is long. The conditions set out are not too problematic, but the fact that they must all be met could be. I will give some examples. First,

“No part of the installation should be higher than four metres”.

Why? Nobody can explain the 4-metre rule. It seems pretty arbitrary. The Bee solar systems are 4.3 metres when they are at their most vertical, but just under 4 metres for most of the day. What difference does it make if it is in someone’s private garden or business space whether it is 4 metres or 4.3 metres? We have already established that it is an acceptable amenity of the area. I ask the Minister: can the limit be at least 5 metres, or can we have no restriction at all unless there is a serious visual issue?

Secondly,

“The installation should be at least 5m from the boundary of the property”.

Again, why? That precludes people with smaller gardens, narrow gardens and smaller homes from being able to install renewable technology. Should only people with huge personal land be permitted to benefit from renewable technologies? Can that be reduced to 2.5 metres or be at the discretion of councils, depending on the circumstances?

Finally,

“The size of the array should be no more than 9 square metres or 3m wide by 3m deep”.

Why? Where has the 9 metres come from? Solar panels have grown since the legislation was published in 2011. They were about 200 W then and are now about 400 W, and panels of upwards of 500 W are becoming commonplace. Can the requirement be removed or adapted to at least 15 square metres, or is there another way through?

I need the Minister and the Department to answer these questions, because I am banging my head against a brick wall. I want them to look closely at whether local authorities already have the powers—even though some of them do not think that they have them—to grant permission for these things, or whether we need to change the regulations. If so, I will work night and day with the Minister to make that happen.

Although I have highlighted the specific technology of solar tracking, the realities of what I have just explained apply to other issues with renewables. Often the planning systems or the planners and the councils—it sounds as though I am giving local authorities a hard time, but they are at the coalface of local people’s applications and inquiries—do not reflect the up-to-date world that we live in, and planners are blaming the Government, so it goes round in a big circle. Without clarity, local people cannot face battling with planning authorities and do not have the resources to engage experts. They will give up—and who can blame them, in some circumstances?

I give my thanks to another organisation, the Big Solar Co-Op, and to Maria Ardley, who is a Stroud co-ordinator. She has set out a number of issues that it faces in trying to get solar on to commercial rooftops. I think we can all agree that that is a good thing to do. The BSC is a national community energy organisation aiming to unlock the huge potential of rooftop solar to cut carbon emissions. Its target is to install 100 MW by 2030, which is equivalent to the energy used by about 30,000 homes. The Stroud team has a target of 400 KW of rooftop solar energy in the first year, which is about eight tennis courts’ worth of roof space. However, it is coming up against some big problems that it had not really appreciated would be there, particularly in an area that is so environmentally focused and a council that is so committed to tackling the climate emergency.

There are plenty of large rooftops in our area that could host solar panels. As a non-profit group, the Big Solar Co-Op is pretty attractive to building managers and business owners, because there is no capital cost. The financial and carbon savings to be made are important for head, heart and planet, but as I said, the planning barriers are holding them back. Maria explained to me that a presumption in favour of rooftop solar, as is the case with Kensington and Chelsea Council, would make things easier for BSC in Stroud and nationally. It allows for well-designed, aesthetically responsible arrays to be professionally designed and installed, even on listed buildings. That could make a huge difference.

I also have a lot of time for CPRE as a charity. The Gloucestershire CPRE works incredibly hard to scrutinise planning applications that affect the countryside and nature and will no doubt have a lot to say about the NPPF needing to be updated, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) said. I note that its position in response to wide concerns about solar farms is to reiterate its commitment to rooftop solar policies. Similarly, Heritage England has released guidance on how to install solar in a way that is sensitive and respectful to the building in question and not scaling out listed buildings.

At the moment, the BSC is working on a fabulous building called the Speech House hotel in the Forest of Dean. I have permission to mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and his team have been contacted about this recently, so they will be working through the issues too. Due to the rules on curtilage, the owners of the Speech House hotel and BSC must go through full planning application and hire a planning consultant. That is costly and cannot be done each time by a not-for-profit organisation. If the rules are not changed, BSC may have to rule out listed buildings, when these are exactly the properties that we need to help. Gill, the owner of the Speech House hotel, has said:

“We are particularly keen to reduce our carbon footprint as quickly as possible as well as having the need to reduce our overall energy costs. The hotel uses a great amount of electricity daily to provide the services that our customers need and want. These costs have more than doubled over the last twelve months. As a major employer in the Forest of Dean, not only do we need to be sustainable, but also, we need to be able to control our costs to maintain employment and levels of business.”

This is a sensible, conscientious employer who is struggling to make progress. She has a brilliant organisation in BSC, which is raring to help. However, I am informed that the Forest of Dean planners did not engage or inform BSC about the visit to the property, and it has been unable to discuss the matter with them. It has been reported to me that Stroud and other councils find it difficult to engage with planners.

I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the issues raised about applying rooftop solar to commercial buildings and to how issues related to listed buildings could be addressed. Will Ministers replicate what councils such as Kensington and Chelsea Council are doing, or say from the Front Bench whether councils can follow and do this unilaterally right now? That would be helpful, and we could then send that to all councils.

On solar farms—I really appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on this issue—I represent a rural area, and quite a few constituents have contacted me about the rise of solar farms in the last few years. They are concerned that they are ruining our countryside, with little thought for food security or the future of farming. A meeting with the hard-working Ham and Stone parish council last week brought home the pressures that our small rural villages and communities are under from the development of massive solar farms. Stroud District Council granted permission for a large solar farm at World’s End farm against the advice of the parish council and highways.

At a similar time, neighbouring South Gloucestershire Council approved another massive solar farm, which will effectively join up with the other solar farm and create a huge loss of green space. The practical consequence for residents, post-permission, is that they are trying to work out how the delivery of hundreds of solar panels will work; they will have to come down rural country lanes, past a primary school and over a very weak bridge. I have met a few local families who are devastated by this planning decision.

Local people are worried about climate change and care about the environment, but they feel under siege. Arlingham village fought long and hard against a huge solar farm there; long-standing relationships were broken, and there was a very upsetting loss for one family. A local councillor also told me that during the Arlingham case, it was established that Stroud District Council had already met its renewable energy targets, so local people were perplexed about why the Green-led council was approving planning applications that are wrong for small areas.

This issue has become entirely confused and quite worrying. I have a good friend and constituent who runs a business, and I trust him to provide me with sensible, constructive information about solar farms. That business spends a lot of time consulting local people, and if it is going to apply for a solar farm, it will ensure that it works for the local community. He sets out that the total UK land covered by solar panels is 0.1%, and under 0.2% of agricultural land, yet that is not how many of our communities feel. They feel that solar farms are here, and that there will be more coming, but the Government have not quite got on to the issue.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate that is definitely timely. She raises the issue of consultation. Does she agree that consultation on proposals as far in advance as possible is essential? Local people, whether they are businesses or neighbours, need to understand completely what is coming, so that they can accommodate it where possible. If there is a rising tide of opposition, the applicants need to understand why that is, and try to amend their proposals to take account of any concerns in the area.

[Siobhan Baillie]

I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more; he says it far more eloquently than I ever could. Consultation is key, and good businesses, as Low Carbon has been, are getting caught in the mix with others who are riding roughshod over local people, and with situations where consultation is not happening. Also, where big solar farms are coming in, there is no compensation to local areas, unlike in the case of wind and other developments.

Private Rented Sector: Regulation

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

Does the hon. Member agree that one factor that should be taken into account is Government support for greater availability of good-quality social housing, which would help to suppress the increase in rents? Allied with that, the Bill and the tax regime should pursue bad landlords, support good landlords and protect tenants at the same time.

[Navendu Mishra]

I agree, although my experience is that Stockport Homes, one of the major local social housing providers, has been struggling to secure properties because their cost has risen significantly. Recent census data shows that Stockport has seen a 48% increase in property values in the past five years, whereas the average in England is 20%. For social housing providers, securing or building new properties, particularly with the rising cost of building materials, is a significant financial commitment that many of them are not able to make. I agree that bad landlords need to be pursued. I do not think the enforcement regime is good enough. Of course, there are good landlords out there—I am not going to dispute that—but they often get tarred with the same brush that bad landlords leave us with.

The Renters (Reform) Bill is a positive step, but there are many loopholes. The rules around section 21, on landlords evicting tenants by claiming to move families in, need to be looked at. There is no provision on rising rents. It is unclear what the penalties will be for landlords who break the rules. There are so many loopholes that we need a serious discussion about how to deliver for people across England.

I have already mentioned the statistics on the average rent values in my constituency. I would like to conclude by making two further points. Owner-occupiers spend 18% of their household income on mortgage payments, while private renters spend 31% of their household income on rent. That is simply unfair, and it is also unsustainable. It is evident from the data for constituencies across England that many—not all—private landlords are making large amounts of money out of the cost of living crisis.

Yesterday, Labour MPs, along with those of several opposition parties, voted to end the unfair leasehold system. Labour is serious about reforming the housing sector; it is not just warm words. I am sorry to say that the Government have failed and continue to let down renters consistently, year after year. In 13-plus years of this Government, we have not seen serious action. I hope the Minister will address these points.