Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The local target is based on housing stock and affordability. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments on affordable housing, and I take her back to what the Prime Minister has said about needing more social housing—I am sure that she appreciates that this is an issue. We will make sure that we lean towards that and build the houses that people need so that local people can get access to the homes that are built in their area, and the infrastructure is an important part of that.

The hon. Lady mentions water drainage and water supply. We have not built a reservoir for decades, and this Government are now taking action to make sure that we build reservoirs and the critical infrastructure that we need to deliver for the housing that we need.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in her role, and I am really pleased that the Government have committed to fast-track developments close to transport hubs. It is a fantastic opportunity to build housing around Shipley station, which is close to the recently refurbished Shipley market. High-quality and affordable housing would help increase footfall and bring regeneration to the high street. Will the Secretary of State join me and the West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, on a visit to Shipley to see the opportunity for herself, and will she help to accelerate house building in Shipley?

[Angela Rayner]

I often visit the West Yorkshire Mayor and her geographical area, and Shipley is a great place. It is a really good drive from my house in Manchester to Shipley—I would recommend it to anyone. I always jump at the chance to go to the area, and I congratulate the West Yorkshire Mayor, my hon. Friend and her local leaders on the work that they are doing to deliver the homes that people desperately need.

Representation of the People Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future.

I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed.

We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities.

The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the security of candidates. That is the motivation behind my new clause 81, which would automatically make all candidates’ addresses anonymous. Does she agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels?

[Zöe Franklin]

I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates.

Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level.

If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it.

I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I congratulate the new Minister, and welcome her to her place. It was, I think, a long overdue promotion.

It was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee; it was my first time. I enjoyed the Committee, and I enjoyed the spirit in which we conducted our debates. There were many occasions when I thought that amendments proposed by Opposition parties were sincere and tabled with good intentions, and on more than one occasion the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), had to take me aside and explain to me patiently why the Government’s position was that we could not do something that seemed to me to be a reasonable request. Some complex issues have arisen today as well. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who suggested that there might be a need for a second phase, and to many other contributions from Members who are more expert than me in in various fields. There has been a real sense of concern about the point that we have reached as a democracy.

I wanted to take a couple of minutes to continue my debate with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). She is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to respond to some of her comments about her amendments. Broadly speaking, she seems to be of the opinion that contributing a single vote towards the election of a representative for a four-to-five-year period should be done at exactly the same age at which people choose who should be their marriage partner till death them do part. Let me explain why I do not think that is correct.

We can play a quick game of “higher or lower”. The compulsory school age is five. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. At 12, you can be trained to take part in dangerous performances. You can be kept in police detention if arrested, and you have to sign your own passport application. At 14, you can get a Saturday job. At 15, you can apply to join the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. At 16, you can buy spray aerosols, enter a pub on your own, drink beer or wine with a meal, join the armed forces, change your name by deed poll without parental consent, hold a licence to drive a moped, or gamble by buying a lottery ticket. You can enter a housing contract. You can leave home. You can apply for legal aid, and be assessed on your own means. You can consent to surgical or dental treatment. You can buy premium bonds. You can become a pet owner, you can consent to sexual activity, and you can obtain your national insurance number. You have to be 17, however, to donate blood. At 18 you can be deployed in the armed forces, you can act as the executor of a will, you can buy fireworks and explosives and you can buy firearms, but you have to be 21 to adopt, or to supervise a learner driver.

The point I am making is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is not like flicking a switch; it is a process. The question that we are really debating is: at what point within that process should we trust somebody to take their first step as a democratic citizen by thinking deeply and contributing one of many thousands of votes in an election for who represents them?

Speaking as someone who has raised three children to the age of 16, but also as someone whose career has involved working with children and youth, I believe that 16 is the right age for a number of reasons. In particular, the evidence is strong that getting young people engaged in the democratic process at that age means that it sticks with them throughout the rest of their lives, but there is another reason too. We have heard talk of this being vote rigging. I have to wonder what it is about so many Conservative Members that makes them automatically assume that a 16-year-old will not vote for them. Every party in this place has an equal opportunity to appeal to that young person for their vote, but when they do not have a vote, they can be ignored. We only have to look at the Conservatives’ record—cutting child trust funds, closing down Sure Start centres, cutting primary school budgets, cutting the educational maintenance allowance, cutting school transport, closing careers services, closing youth centres, tripling tuition fees, locking people out of the housing market, and not doing enough on climate change—to see why it is important that we give that generation a say in their future. The right hon. Member for Tatton made that commitment at Wilmslow high school nine years ago, and I am disappointed that she has rowed back on it today.

I strongly endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). We need to look at the issue of deepfakes and protect our democracy, because we are all subject to it.

[Anna Dixon]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on becoming a Minister. It is great to see her on the Front Bench.

I really welcome this Bill. We can go back in history and look at the amazing enfranchisement that happened with the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928, when suffrage was extended to women and those with no property. When I have visitors in Parliament, I love showing them the stained-glass windows where, here in this place, we celebrate giving more people the vote. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we can celebrate the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am really proud that this Labour Government are extending the vote and reversing the Conservatives’ measures that disenfranchise people without voter ID, and that we are also going further with automatic voter registration. These are all really great strides forward in enabling more people to vote.

I hugely support a lot of other provisions in the Bill that ensure that our elections are free and fair, but I want to speak specifically to new clause 81, in my name. One part of a free and fair democracy is that it is essential that candidates and elected officials feel safe. My new clause would take forward a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and put an end to the publication of candidates’ home addresses. Today, the default option is for a candidate’s home address to be published. In the increasingly hostile and toxic political climate in which we operate, that is clearly a cause for concern, and I believe it has a chilling effect on our democracy.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) in remembering our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, who were both tragically murdered, and we think of the family of Ann Widdecombe as her horrific murder continues to be investigated. It is a travesty that death threats are now seen as part of the job, and as we know, it is women who are more at risk and more likely to be threatened. It has been reported—so, Madam Deputy Speaker, no worries—that a constituent of mine has recently received a suspended custodial sentence and a lifetime restraining order for a threat to kill me, in which he wrote:

“If I see you in public, I will try my best to kill you. I will work hard to find out where you live, and I will kill you there.”

That is why this amendment is personal to me. As things stand, if a candidate does not want their address to be published, they must actively request it. Thankfully, I had the foresight and I did, but it does put people like me who choose to do that at a disadvantage to other candidates by creating the impression that we do not want to be open and transparent. If this new clause were implemented, the requirements for those who decline to have their address published would become the default for all candidates, giving everyone confidence that, at least in their own home, they and their families would be safe.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her earlier engagement, and I look forward to and hope that the Minister will continue to work with me and the Jo Cox Foundation, as this Bill progresses through to the other place, to ensure we can put in safeguards and protections for candidates, their families and others, such as agents, who support them. I am not going to push my amendment to a vote, but I do hope that we can take measures to protect all those who put themselves forward for elected office at all levels.

I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, for his leadership of the APPG for fair elections, of which I am a member. Others have commented on just how unfair, unrepresentative and unsustainable our electoral system is at the moment, so I do hope—even though we are not considering it—that, in summing up and her wind-up comments, the Minister will give assurances about the steps the Government may take to further protect our democracy and ensure that every vote counts by looking at further measures of electoral reform in the future.

It is vital that we protect our democracy against foreign interests and others who wish to undermine it, and I hope the Minister will consider my amendment and some of those of other hon. Members.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their collective engagement so far on this Bill. As a former anti-corruption specialist for more than a decade and chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have had the pleasure of working with Members from across the House on this Bill in seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy.

To that end, I wholeheartedly endorse a number of amendments: new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on cryptocurrency; amendments 31 to 34 from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on strengthening “know your donor” requirements; new clause 61 from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on closing the political party start-up funding loophole; new clause 70 from my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on reducing campaign spending limits; new clauses 93 to 95 from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on foreign source donations and loans; and new clause 86 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on overseas donations. I hope the Minister will respond substantively to each of those amendments when she winds up.

I want to focus my remarks on new clause 121 and amendment 151, which are in my name on the amendment paper. Both are ultimately about one deliverable that I know the Government want to achieve—namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good.

On new clause 121, I welcome the Government’s move over the weekend to expedite their existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. However, if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future-proof, and that is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests: first, the fairness of elections; secondly, the impact on the political parties; and thirdly, public confidence in electoral integrity.

The new clause would also ensure that future increases could take place only following an independent recommendation from the Electoral Commission. This matters because politics is caught in an increasingly unsustainable fundraising arms race. In 2023, spending limits were increased unilaterally by the Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. As spending limits rise, so does the pressure on parties to raise ever larger sums of money, and when the demand for money grows, it follows that the risk appetite for parties accepting donations, and therefore the window of opportunity for bad actors, also grows. The Rycroft review made exactly that point. Reducing spending limits can help reduce incentives to seek funding from problematic sources and lessen the pressures that fuel concerns about foreign interference in our politics.

Secondly, on amendment 151 in my name, I welcome the Government’s decision in July to move to a profit-based cap on corporate donations—a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue, and something that the APPG I chair had for months been calling for. However, two significant loopholes remain. Amendment 151 would close both loopholes by ensuring that only the profits of the donating company itself are counted, and by calculating donation limits using average profits over five years, rather than accumulated profits. That would provide a more accurate measure of genuine economic activity, and make it far harder for corporate structures to be used to circumvent the intention of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.

One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.

John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.

[Anna Dixon]

I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?

[Ms Minns]

I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their beautiful and thoughtful opening remarks, and I thank colleagues and friends from across the House for attending this debate, during what I know is a busy time in politics—it was ever thus. I also thank the many colleagues who have contacted me to let me know that, sadly, they could not be here due to other commitments. Their messages have been gratefully received.

Today, 10 years since her murder, we gather to remember Jo. Jo Cox was, yes, an MP, and that is how many people do and always will think of her. But while being an MP is of course a very important job, like all of us Jo was so much more. She was a daughter, a mum, a wife, a colleague, a friend to many in this place and far beyond, and she was my sister. She was a very special person who embodied compassion, courage and an unwavering belief in the goodness of people. She was a woman who dedicated her life to public service, to fighting injustice and to bringing people together.

Helen Joanne Leadbeater—I know, who knew?—was born at Dewsbury and District hospital in West Yorkshire in 1974. She did not come from privilege or a political dynasty; she came from ordinary roots, and she carried with her throughout her life a deep understanding of ordinary people’s struggles, hopes and fears. We had a great childhood—nothing fancy or posh, but always surrounded by love, family and friendship. We had two wonderful parents who gave us the freedom and space to find our own way in life, and the support and stability to develop the confidence to do so. We had a close-knit family and a wide-ranging group of friends. And, of course, we had each other.

I have reflected a lot on our childhood over the last decade and I am so lucky to have an abundance of happy memories. The early years: walking to school, climbing trees, pretending we were in the A-Team, making up dance routines to Wham! and playing out until it was dark and we got called in for our tea. The teenage years and beyond: exams, holidays, parties, boyfriends. On more than one occasion I have been very grateful for there being no camera phones back then; I am not sure that either of us—or possibly any of us here today—would have ever had a career in public life if there had been. We certainly had plenty of fun.

Jo and I also had instilled in us a core set of values and beliefs. Our parents taught us to treat everybody with respect, kindness and empathy. They taught us simple principles, like treating people how you would wish to be treated; listening to different views and perspectives; compromising when necessary and agreeing to disagree; and, in true Yorkshire style, how sometimes, if you do not have anything good to say, to just keep your gob shut. These things were not drilled into us—they were more inherently included as part of everyday life, and they stayed with us both throughout our lives.

We were always both incredibly interested in other people and always had lots of questions when we met someone new. From a young age, we took great pleasure in hearing stories of people from a wide range of backgrounds. The differences were not a focus, but nor were they invisible; they were to be cherished and celebrated.

Jo was genuinely one of the nicest people you could hope to meet, but she was not naturally confident—she was actually very shy when we were kids. I am always really honest about this when I speak to people, particularly young people and often women, because sometimes when we see successful people in public life, we assume that they have always been really confident and self-assured, with no self-doubts, hang-ups or anxieties. In my experience, that is often not the case—and it is certainly not for me and it was certainly not for Jo. When we were teenagers, she would ask me to ring up to order the takeaway or check the bus timetable.

Over the years, Jo worked incredibly hard to overcome her fears and doubts. She made no secret of the difficulties she had settling into life at Cambridge University. As a working-class northerner, it felt like a world away from life in West Yorkshire, much like this place, in many ways. We missed each other desperately and both felt acutely lonely, but in true Jo style, she stuck it out and battled on. She was very grateful for the education that she received and, more importantly, for the strong friendships she made.

Before entering Parliament, Jo spent years working on humanitarian causes, helping vulnerable people around the world. She worked for organisations that sought to alleviate poverty, defend human rights and support those devastated by conflict and disaster. Her politics were never rooted in power or glory. They were rooted in empathy and humanity. When she became the MP for Batley and Spen in 2015, she brought that same humanity into public life. She spoke passionately about loneliness, inequality, refugees and community cohesion. She believed politics should improve lives, not inflame hatred. Perhaps her most famous words, from her maiden speech in this place, capture her entire philosophy: her belief, as has been said,

“that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

It speaks to something essential in our society—something that in recent times we seem to be seriously at risk of forgetting.

I could talk all day about how great Jo was—and she really was—but you need only to look at the many tributes that came in from across the world when she was killed to see that for yourself. It is always very important for me to remember that it was Jo, and more specifically her murder, that brought me to this place, and all of us together today.

Jo was murdered on 16 June 2016, just one week before the Brexit referendum and a week before her 42nd birthday. Jo had worked in some of the world’s most dangerous countries, but she was killed not in some distant place or in a war zone, but on the streets of her constituency, while carrying out her democratic duty as an elected representative, 10 minutes from where we live. Jo’s murder shocked the nation, it horrified the world, it left our family utterly bereft and it left two small children without their mum.

Those children are of course Jo’s most important legacy, and I am delighted to report that they are doing brilliantly. They are very like Jo in so many ways and they are annoyingly good at everything. They are musical, they are sporty, they are academic and they are really nice human beings. When they come up to Yorkshire, we try to find something that we can beat them at—and we fail every time. They are very much in my thoughts today and every day. As a family, we have ensured that they have been bathed in love for the last 10 years, just as Jo would have wished, and they are thriving as a result.

We have worked incredibly hard as a family to stay positive and strong, and we have been supported by so many wonderful people who have done so many amazing things in Jo’s name, which I will come to, but this year I feel that we also need to address more directly why Jo was killed. We must be honest about the atmosphere in which Jo’s murder took place. The Brexit referendum was one of the most divisive periods in modern British history. People were encouraged to see each other not as neighbours with differing opinions but as enemies. Public discourse became increasingly toxic, fear was weaponised, anger became political currency, complex issues were reduced to slogans and compromise was portrayed as weakness.

Of course, disagreement is part of democracy, debate is healthy and passion in politics is natural—Jo would be the first to say so—but what developed at that time went beyond disagreement and became something much darker. Social media amplified outrage. Politicians and commentators often chose confrontation over understanding, because division attracted attention. Entire communities were fractured. Families argued, friendships broke down and trust in institutions collapsed. In that climate, hatred found oxygen.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am so moved by my hon. Friend’s words about her sister. I commend her for her amazing bravery and courage in stepping into her sister’s shoes and being an amazing MP for Batley and Spen. I thank her for her words. As some hon. Members may know, I was a contemporary of Jo’s at university; I am just sorry that although we knew people in common, I did not know her.

I fear that the division and hate that my hon. Friend is speaking about, which fuelled Jo’s murder, continues to spread, and that if anything abuse and threats against MPs is on the rise. Does she agree that all hon. Members across the House must redouble our efforts to uphold civility in politics, to follow Jo’s shining example? I commend the continuing work of the Jo Cox Foundation to support civility in our politics.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is lovely that she, a fellow Yorkshire MP, is with us today. I absolutely agree with her. We can reflect on that time in 2016—to me, a lot of it is a blur—but to say that Brexit was responsible for Jo’s murder would be simplistic and untrue. There is one individual who committed that heinous crime: a far-right neo-Nazi, whose evil act was his and his alone. However, things do not happen in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the broader social and political atmosphere that surrounded it. Toxic rhetoric, scapegoating and the dehumanisation of opponents all contributed to a society under immense strain.

Words matter. The language we use in politics matters, because language shapes culture and culture shapes behaviour. When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified. Tragically, we have seen that again in recent weeks and days. We must all call it out. That is why remembering how and why Jo was killed matters so deeply. If we reduce her death to an isolated act, we learn nothing. If we refuse to examine the environment of anger and polarisation that surrounded it, we fail both her memory and our democracy.

Sadly, a decade later, many of the same forces are still with us—perhaps even stronger. Today, polarisation dominates public life. Across politics, media and online platforms, people are increasingly pushed into opposing camps. Nuance disappears, and every issue becomes a battle. Every disagreement becomes moral warfare. We see a growing blame culture in Britain. When the economy struggles, when public services let us down, when communities feel left behind, someone must be blamed— migrants, politicians, the poor, the rich. The young blame the old, the old blame the young, cities blame rural communities, rural communities blame cities, and through all of that we risk losing sight of our shared humanity.

Social media algorithms reward outrage, because outrage keeps people engaged. News cycles thrive on conflict, because conflict generates clicks and views. Politicians can gain more support more easily by telling people who to fear than by offering difficult and complex long-term solutions. This constant division creates loneliness, mistrust, resentment and cynicism. It makes people feel unheard and angry. It encourages us to see one another not as fellow citizens, but as opponents to be defeated. That is dangerous for any democracy. A healthy society cannot survive if its people stop believing in one another.

I also want to pay tribute today to Sir David Amess—another colleague and friend to many in this place—who was murdered by an Islamist extremist in 2021. His family and friends have been very much in my thoughts in recent weeks. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided by the evil actions of ideological extremists, whatever sick views they are peddling. So the question becomes: what do we do about it? How do we honour the memory of Jo, not just with words, but with action?

In the past 10 years, we have seen an abundance of action in Jo’s name. In the face of the worst of humanity, we have seen the very best of it, in so many ways, including of course through the work of the Jo Cox Foundation—the charity set up by Jo’s family and friends in the months after she was killed. It works on issues as diverse as the protection of civilians in conflicts, such as in Syria; the promotion of women in all aspects of public life—it is great to see so many sisters here today; on loneliness and isolation; and on the related work to build closer and stronger communities at home and abroad.

The trailblazing work that Jo started on loneliness resulted in the world’s first ever Minister for loneliness—my good friend and colleague, Tracey Crouch—and the first ever Government strategy on loneliness. The UK is still seen as a world leader on this really important subject, and I strongly urge the Government to update the cross-departmental strategy to ensure that we do not lose that reputation.

Park Home Owners

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

I trust that the Minister and his team will do exactly that. This is not just about the 10% sales commission; there are broader issues impacting park home residents. I will come on to those matters shortly.

Let me say two important things. First, mobile homes can be a very good housing option. They typically offer people a smaller, more manageable home in an attractive, close-knit community. The quality of mobile homes has improved considerably over recent years; the sites are often now home to a diverse mix of individuals and families, just like any other location.

Secondly, and critically, for most people park homes are not a second home or a luxury purchase; they are their only home. They therefore represent security, independence and a lifetime of savings, just like the bricks-and-mortar properties that most of us inhabit. That is precisely why protections for mobile home owners matter. We are talking about 160,000 ordinary people living ordinary lives in 100,000 increasingly ordinary properties, but they are underpinned by out-of-date legislation and perceptions. Rightly, the Government are looking at major commonhold, leasehold and fleecehold reforms to end the feudal leasehold system and the injustice of unfair maintenance costs, but as part of those wider changes, park and mobile home owners must not be forgotten. I hope that today’s debate will make sure that they are not.

On mobile homes, MPs from parties of all colours have talked over the years about mis-selling, poor maintenance, weak enforcement, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, sale blocking and the 10% commission charge when a home is sold. Most concerningly, MPs have often alluded to the imbalance of power between mobile home residents and site owners.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by residents of the Harden and Bingley Park on Goit Stock Lane in Harden. They feel trapped in their relationship with the site owner, which they have said does nothing. On the 10% commission, they want to give the whole of their estate to their family as an inheritance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that residents feed their views into the consultation, and that we make sure that the deal between park home owners and residents is fair and proportionate?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consultation is being run for a reason. I encourage anyone watching the debate or emailing their MPs about it to go further and engage with the consultation, because I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to review those responses.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him.

It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not.

As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important.

As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission.

I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree that, particularly for those with disabilities or who are blind, this issue is a real problem?

[Lewis Cocking]

I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.

Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.

These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.

In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.

To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.

[Anna Dixon]

As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.

I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.

For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

2. What mechanisms his Department has put in place to ensure that communities are consulted on the use of Pride in Place funding in Shipley constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. Shipley will benefit from the £1.5 million allocated to Bradford through the Pride in Place impact fund. The Department has asked local authorities to engage with their local MP and a wider range of local stakeholders to shape delivery of the fund, and to report on that engagement.

[Anna Dixon]

A happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s £1.5 million impact fund for Bradford is critical to communities that have been overlooked for too long. I recently visited Windhill recreation ground in my local area, which is set to benefit from Pride in Place funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that after 14 years of brutal cuts to northern councils such as Bradford, this Labour Government are providing our local areas and communities with the investment they need?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents, which I saw for myself when I visited her constituency during the general election. She is right, of course: this funding is going to hundreds of areas that were the most left behind by the previous Government, so that they can take decisions about what to invest in and put pride back at the heart of the communities that the people there belong to and love.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take a brief intervention?

[Alison McGovern]

I can, if my hon. Friend really wants to intervene. [Laughter.]

[Anna Dixon]

No—I withdraw.

[Alison McGovern]

I will happily correspond with any Members interested in that subject, but nothing has been confirmed yet. Let us try to make progress on that; it is very important for all local authorities.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked whether this will be the sole reorganisation, and the answer is no. We are making progress on the next waves of reorganisation, and there will be more for the Government to say on that very shortly. He also asked for guidance on the new high-value council tax surcharge that we have introduced, as well as the £63 million extra in capability funding. We have been in consultation and collaboration with councils and the Local Government Association on both those matters, as we have been throughout all of reorganisation. I will happily provide the hon. Gentleman with more detail on that, if he wishes.

The hon. Member for Guildford asked about precedents from other reorganisations. Of course, we take into account what has happened previously, and the criteria against which decisions are judged are set out in the invitation letter. She asked about the county council leadership, and I can write to her with details of that process, if she would like. She also asked some detailed questions on risks and the technicalities of vacancies and by-elections, and I will again write to her with the precise details.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne asked about the name and our fellow Member’s campaign. Following oral questions, I will engage with the Member concerned, so he need have no fear—we will be listening to his points.

Finally, the hon. Member for Woking asked about the situation that he rightly described as incredibly serious—it is much more serious for any council to have got into that position than the attention that it is often given would suggest. I will write to him on the next steps with the commissioners, how it affects the whole best value process and the background of that. He also asked about the specifics of cancelling elections last year. I do not think that has any relevance, but I will write to him to confirm that, as I think he asked a specific point about advice.

I say to Surrey Members, through the Committee, that there are significant financial challenges here, and I do not underestimate how important it is to get this right to ensure that services can continue to be delivered for residents. I look forward to working together with Surrey Members to get those decisions right, so that we all get this process to the best place it can be.

The Government’s ambition is to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform to make stronger local councils that are empowered across local services and equipped to get economic growth going, improve services and empower communities. The draft order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey, and it will help ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver for residents. These are the benefits that the draft order can bestow on the people and businesses of Surrey, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is probably easier if my hon. Friend writes to me on those particular concerns in her area, and I will set out the Government’s full position. I am happy to discuss the matter that she raises in further detail.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister confirmed that 40 more places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that nearly 300 communities—those most held back by the previous Government—will benefit from that transformational programme. They will receive up to £20 million each over 10 years—a transformational level of funding—and, importantly, local people will decide how that money is spent. This Government recognise that local people know best what needs to change to bring pride back to the heart of the place they call home.

[Anna Dixon]

Our politics are increasingly fragmented. There is a real threat that an extreme minority party could win a majority of seats with just a fraction of the popular vote at the next general election—the situation is urgent. Some 60% of the public now support proportional representation. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections to discuss the case for a national commission on electoral reform?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear that the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or council elections in England. Indeed, the last time a Government called a referendum on proportional representation, the public rejected it. The Government believe that although first past the post is not always perfect, it provides an important direct relationship between Members of this Chamber and their local constituents. I will of course ensure that she gets an appropriate meeting.

New Towns

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katrina Murray]

The hon. Gentleman must have read the other parts of my speech, as I will come to that point. As I was about to say, new towns were never meant to just be housing schemes. They were meant to be places: planned communities, where jobs, homes and services developed together, so people could build stable lives close to where they worked. That vision is clear in how Cumbernauld was developed. It brought together families moving out of overcrowded parts of Glasgow, alongside others, often younger people and professionals, who moved there specifically to work. Employment was central, not an afterthought. Major employers, including Burroughs, played a central role in the town’s early growth. It provided skilled employment at scale, initially manufacturing mechanical adding machines—remember those?—and later moving into computers and printers.

People moved to Cumbernauld for work and opportunity, and to put down roots. As industries changed, the site evolved into what is now the Wardpark industrial area, which continues to support employment in different forms. Around that, neighbourhoods were designed to function as real communities. Social housing was central, not marginal, and each area had its own shops, post office, parking, garages and public transport, with regular bus services connecting people into Glasgow and beyond. When new towns are discussed now, the focus is often on buildings or concrete. What often gets overlooked is the thought given to how people would actually live—how housing, employment, transport and green space all fit together. Cumbernauld is sometimes judged by its built form, but it is also defined by its green space deliberately woven into daily life. That is the new town model at its best.

It is impossible to talk about Cumbernauld without mentioning the town centre. In the 1960s it was genuinely celebrated: award-winning, internationally recognised, and seen as a confident expression of modernist and brutalist design. It was officially opened by Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon. For families arriving at that time, that optimism was real: with the modern buildings, light, space and public services, they felt like stepping out of the 19th-century conditions they were used to and into the modern world.

Decades later, that same town centre went on to win awards of a very different kind, including the Carbuncle awards and the Plook on the Plinth in the early noughties. That contrast tells its own story. It is about not a lack of ambition, but what happens when bold design is left without sustained investment, renewal and long-term stewardship. Today, the town centre is undergoing long-term regeneration, made possible with the investment of the UK Government focused on making the centre work for modern life, rather than erasing what came before.

The same issues can be seen in parts of the housing stock. Houses that were built quickly, using methods that were innovative at the time, did not always stand the test of time. In Cumbernauld, areas such as Ainslie Road were affected by concrete deterioration, leading to homes having to be demolished, while flat-roofed housing—very much of its era—proved less suited to Scotland’s climate as buildings aged. But that experience has also supported local expertise, including firms like BriggsAmasco—a Cumbernauld-based flat roofing specialist investing highly in skills and apprenticeships.

These challenges were not unique to my town. Across the new towns, infrastructure and housing aged at the same time, without the funding or the governance structures to renew them properly. When development corporations were wound up and assets sold off, responsibility became fragmented. In many cases, ownership passed from hedge fund to hedge fund, with no real long-term stake in the place beyond what appeared on a balance sheet. What went wrong was not the new town concept itself, but the failure to plan properly for what came next. That is the lesson we cannot afford to ignore. If we are serious about learning from new towns, and about building new ones, the ambition at the start has to be matched by responsibility over the long term.

When we talk about new towns, it is easy to focus on plans and buildings. What really made places like Cumbernauld work were the people who stepped up, saw what was missing, and got things done; that early generation who made sure that this was their community. One of those people was Sheena Walker, a true pioneer in disability care. When she moved to Cumbernauld in the late 1960s, there was no local support for children with learning disabilities. She refused to accept that. Through sheer determination and tenacity, she brought parents together and worked across the development corporation, the council and social work to create community housing, day centres and respite care. Her drive was the difference, and the services she helped to build became so strong that families later moved to Cumbernauld specifically because of them.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people, we are about to complete an inquiry into intergenerational communities. Will she join me in calling for the new new towns to be built and designed for all ages and all abilities as inclusive communities?

[Katrina Murray]

I very much commend my hon. Friend’s suggestion. What is clear is how important it is to have intergenerational towns and accessible housing.

Another local legend was Danny McGowan, who taught generations of Cumbernauld’s children to swim. He founded Cumbernauld swimming club and built it into a competitive force, driven by his passion for the sport and for giving young people confidence in the water, all despite the small challenge that the council had built the swimming pool to the wrong size for it to be a competitive pool. Rather than being put off, he worked around it, and thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of children benefited as a result. Both those stories matter because they show that new towns were never just about infrastructure, but about people with commitment and imagination shaping communities from the inside and making places work for those who lived there.

So what does all of this tell us not just about Cumbernauld, but about new towns more broadly? One clear lesson is that long-term responsibility matters. Building homes and infrastructure is only the beginning. Without clarity about stewardship, places struggle to thrive decades later. Another lesson is that homes and jobs must be planned together. New towns worked best when people could live close to where they worked, and not allowed to become purely commuter settlements. Renewal has to start with people. Regeneration is not just about buildings and masterplans. It has to involve communities and to respect the identity of places that people care deeply about. This feels particularly relevant as the Government look to build a new generation of new towns in England. If we are serious about doing that well, we have to learn from the first generation: planning for stewardship from day one and giving communities a real voice as places grow and change.

Our first generation of new towns are no longer new towns in any meaningful sense; they are simply towns with families, histories, challenges and pride built up over generations. People were born there, raised there, worked there, stayed there, left there and came home—that is what matters when we talk about the future. I hope this debate will help to ensure that as we build again at scale, we are not simply creating new places, but committing to them for the long term. I look forward to hearing the contributions from across the House.

Local Government Finance

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am sure you would like to join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in thanking the Minister for backing Bradford in her response to our hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). This Government’s fair funding is finally turning a corner for councils like Bradford that have been at the sharp end of Tory cuts to local government. Does the Minister agree that, with elections in May next year, if residents in my Shipley constituency want to see improvements in local services, they will need a Labour council working with a Labour Government?

[Alison McGovern]

My announcement today is a massive vote of confidence in the people of Shipley and of Bradford, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that every penny piece of that investment improves her constituents’ lives.