Supporting High Streets

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am very fortunate to represent the beautiful villages across the Shipley constituency, including Baildon, Menston, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Wilsden, Harden, Cullingworth and Eldwick. These communities are thriving because they have village halls; churches, like Wesleys in Baildon; post offices, like the community post office run by volunteers in Wilsden; pubs, like the Malt Shovel in Menston; local Co-operative supermarkets; and many independent cafés and shops. I will focus on the two main towns, Bingley and Shipley.

Bingley is a historical market town. It has a thriving arts centre that has recently benefited from upgrades after receiving grassroots arts funding. Bingley’s anchor business is the famous Damart factory, which makes thermal underwear. It hosts community events, and has hosted a fantastic exhibition for Bradford 2025. There are new charitable enterprises, such as the Brick Bank café, and independent shops, such as Luscombe’s, Hedgehog Organics and Eldwick Creamery, as well as cafés such as the Craft House, the Loft and the Lounge.

At the heart of the town is Bingley pool, which sadly remains closed due to the devastating cuts that the Tories made, over 14 years, to local councils such as Bradford council, and due to the previous Conservative Government’s false promises of levelling-up funding, which never materialised. By contrast, this Government have committed millions through the pride in place programme, and are rebalancing the amount of money for councils like Bradford. They are giving more power and money to local communities. I am keen for the Minister to say more about how Labour is strengthening the community right to buy, which will make it easier for local communities to take on and run facilities such as Bingley pool.

Let me turn to Shipley town centre. While there are some brilliant businesses there, it was really neglected under the Tories; there were vacant shops and many charity shops, banks closed, crime was up, and shoplifters were free to commit crime with no consequences. I congratulate Bradford council on delivering a fantastic upgrade to the market square, and I also congratulate this Labour Government on increasing neighbourhood policing, which led to a summer crackdown on street drinking and new powers to crack down on retail crime. Unlike other areas we have heard about today, we are seeing new pubs opening, such as Reconnection in Shipley, which opened just this weekend under the ownership of Beth and Nathan, who already run a successful pub in Baildon. I hope that the Minister agrees that high streets like Shipley’s are on the up; we have a Labour Government and a Labour council finally working together.

There is huge potential in Shipley to increase footfall. It is well connected to Leeds and Bradford by train, and now that this Labour Government are getting the trains back into public ownership, we will see improved services and better affordability. It is vital that we build more housing on brownfield sites, such as the riverside in Saltaire and the old Ian Clough Hall in Baildon, so that more people live near and on our high streets. We should also convert excess commercial, retail and office spaces into much-needed social and affordable homes. I hope the Minister will set out how Homes England funding and planning reforms will unlock those sites, stimulate growth on our high streets, and reverse the situation that we faced under the Tory Government, when so few homes were built.

To sum up, places and town centres like those in Bingley and Shipley have huge potential. After 14 years of neglect and decline under the Tories, this Government are supporting our high streets, so that they can thrive once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

I welcome the work of my PCC, particularly on retail crime and in rolling out UKPAC.

The police officers I have mentioned deserve real credit, and with proper investment and community backing, they can finally do the job that the experts want them to do. That is why the initiatives I have described, alongside the pride in place programme, are so vital for my city. Portsmouth North has been awarded £20 million to breathe life back into local high streets and communities in Paulsgrove. That funding will go directly towards regenerating community spaces, improving safety and supporting the local economy. Importantly, how that money is spent will be decided by the community—the people who know the area best.

We already see progress being made by a Labour Government acting on behalf of our communities—in education, in our NHS and in our armed forces. Local residents have told me that they finally feel hopeful that their neighbourhood will receive the investment and respect that it needs and deserves.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), whose outstanding campaign for high-street renewal has inspired so many of us. It was her work that encouraged me to launch my own local initiative, the “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign. The campaign tackles an issue that has plagued communities like mine for too long: the rise of so-called dodgy shops—unregulated outlets selling counterfeit goods and illegal vapes, massage parlours and barbers, often operating outside proper licensing and safety standards and shirking their tax responsibilities, leaving an unfair playing field for those who do follow the rules.

[Anna Dixon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the number of pop-up shops and illegal traders on the high street. I am running a petition about the antisocial use of fireworks; does she agree that more needs to be done to stop their illegal sale in pop-up shops?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. Such shops are unregulated and potentially not paying their taxes, unlike other businesses on the same high streets. They drive down the quality of our high streets, put legitimate traders out of business, and create environments where antisocial behaviour can flourish. I am working closely with Portsmouth city council’s trading standards team and Portsmouth police to ensure that enforcement action is taken, including raids and seizures. We need to push councils to use the powers proposed in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill; to work with communities; and to take compulsory purchase opportunities, so that we replace empty units with genuine local businesses and community spaces. This is about restoring pride, safety and opportunity to our local shopping areas.

However, our high streets are not just about shops. In a changing world of retail, we can and should ensure that retail, leisure, hospitality, personal services and houses sit together, because high streets are places where people come together and find friendship, conversation and connection. Supporting them is central to rebuilding vibrant, safe and welcoming communities. Conservative Members talk today about “reviving” our high streets, but it is a Labour Government and a Labour MP who are actually doing that in my city—investing in people, working with small and medium-sized enterprises, hospitality and leisure, and rebuilding our communities. We are ensuring that local pride has national action.

Let me end by thanking residents, volunteers, tradespeople, retailers, those who work for small and medium-sized enterprises and community groups in Portsmouth. They are out there every single day keeping our high streets alive, and their pride and persistence are the heartbeat of our communities. With this Labour Government and two Labour MPs, they finally have partners in Westminster who share their ambition, their passion and their pride in our city—and we are not stopping there, because we want to reach the heights and become the City of Culture.

Property Service Charges

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate. I know that leaseholders across the country will be watching this debate very closely, because the cost of being a leaseholder has contributed to the cost of living challenges that so many of our constituents have faced for such a long time.

My leaseholder action group in Kensington and Bayswater, which the Minister kindly met with recently, regularly shares stories of escalating, unaccountable and untransparent service charges levied by managing agents that they have no control over. At worst, the current system can represent a cartel, with a broken market in which competition between managing agents is undermined by monopoly-type relationships with some freeholders and a broken connection between those who pay the bills and those who deliver the services.

The impact can be devastating. One of my constituents, Adriana, has taken her housing provider to tribunal three separate times simply to get clarity on how her service charge was calculated. Each time she has won, but the housing provider is still not providing the information; indeed, it is now offering to withdraw all the charges, rather than provide that information. That is not transparency: it relies on the assumption that the other residents, many of whom are elderly or financially strained, will not have the resources to challenge. Rather than giving up, Adriana now supports other residents in helping them to understand their rights and how to contest these unfair practices. Her determination is admirable, but it should not fall to residents themselves to protect one another from a system that is supposed to protect them.

Another group of residents who speak to me regularly about these issues, who live in a building called Shaftesbury Place, have been hit with crippling increases to their charges after a 2,489% increase in their building insurance premium. That annual cost, which is up from £15,000 to £375,000 a year, has been passed directly to the leaseholders through their service charges. The housing provider says that the freeholder procured the insurance—the residents have seen evidence suggesting otherwise—but the confusion over who procured the insurance and how the premium was calculated has left leaseholders caught in the middle. The justification appears to rest on a fire risk assessment that many residents believe is flawed, but the result is that ordinary homeowners, including shared ownership homeowners trying to climb the ladder, have been left with unaffordable bills and no clear line of accountability for how those costs have been allowed to spiral.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for explaining the problems so clearly, problems that are shared by my elderly residents in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in Bingley. They too have seen above-inflation rises in service charges and a lack of transparency about accounts, with no evidence to justify them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time that we bring in licensing and stronger regulation of managing agents such as FirstPort?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I will see what I can do, Madam Deputy Speaker. Property service charges and the behaviour of the companies that levy them are causing real distress across the country. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for her speech setting out those challenges.

In Colchester, I have heard from residents in Orchard Gardens, Colne View and Kingswood Heath who are being charged astonishing amounts—often thousands of pounds a year—for services that are either poorly delivered or not delivered at all. Many of those homes are managed by one company, and the House could guess that that company is FirstPort. When I walked into the Chamber, FirstPort had been named 39 times in the Chamber this year, but I imagine that has doubled in the course of this afternoon. It claims to be an “award- winning property management service” that

“makes sure customers feel safe and happy in their homes.”

I think we all have a little bit of news for FirstPort.

Retired residents in Orchard Gardens showed me demands for payments for services that they never received or for which they had already paid. Residents at the Colne View development have faced a 15-year battle over neglect, overcharging and obfuscation. They have faced extortionate service charges—sometimes doubling in a year—yet their buildings are left mouldy, unsafe and unclean. They feel bullied, belittled and beyond hope that they will ever resolve what has become a living nightmare. I am pleased to say that one of those residents, Chia, was able to come into Parliament last week to give some evidence to a panel of MPs organised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who have been working on this issue for some time. I hope the Minister will consider the evidence that was gathered.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always happy to sit down and talk to him about these and other issues. It must be said that when preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Local authorities are not doing that in all cases, which is why the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to do so. We can discuss that and other issues when I meet him.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

New housing developments agreed under the previous Government have been built on the green belt around villages in the Shipley constituency, such as Burley in Wharfedale, Wilsden, Denholme and Cullingworth, often without the vital investment in infrastructure such as GP practices, schools and other council services. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that as we build the much-needed affordable and social homes, we will prioritise brownfield and ensure adequate investment in the community?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance; ours is a brownfield-first policy. She highlights an important point. The previous Government released vast swathes of the green belt in a haphazard and chaotic manner. We are taking a strategic approach to green-belt release, prioritising the release of the lowest-quality grey belt, and we are ensuring that where that happens, subject to our golden rules, we see higher levels of affordable housing and infrastructure. It is a much smarter approach. The previous Government did not adopt it, and they should stop carping about it now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

At the moment, there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who would love to be in a job, and who say they could be in a job today if they had the support to make that possible for them. We are determined to provide them with that support.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the personal independence payment is a passport benefit for carer’s allowance. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that approximately 150,000 family carers will lose out due to the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for PIP. What further analysis have the Government done of the financial impacts of welfare reform on family carers?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are consulting on the support that will be needed over the next few years for perhaps one in 10 of those currently claiming PIP. Support will be needed for those who lose their benefit, and that will include family carers who receive carer’s allowance at the moment.

Parking Regulation

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and other colleagues for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have made contributions illustrating something that is a scandal across the whole country.

I want to highlight how my constituents in Shipley are being ripped off with a number of cases that are impacting both residents and shoppers. I spoke to a constituent who lives at Victoria Mills, a beautiful residential development in the heart of Saltaire. He has been trying to register his vehicle with the company that operates the residents’ car park, BaySentry. It has him down as owning two cars and two spaces, neither of which has the correct registration details, so every time he enters or exits his car park—sometimes two or three times a day—he is issued with a fine. The website is extremely difficult and confusing to use. Although he has been contacting the company, which keeps saying it will respond in three days, he has still had no response. Having clocked up several thousands of pounds in fines owed, he has decided to move out. He knows that other residents threatened with the same sort of penalty notices have paid up because they are too scared, as we have heard today.

Another constituent overstayed slightly at a supermarket car park, but saw that the signage was extremely poor and submitted evidence to that effect. She went down the route of appeal using POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals. That pretends to look like an independent appeals process, but, as we know, these are not independent processes; they are paid for by the parking companies. She has got into dispute with POPLA, which is not progressing her appeal. This is really undermining people’s confidence in parking.

The third case study is that of Susan, who has a happier story. She was shopping at the new Lidl store—she was there 30 minutes before opening time to use the browsing time before the store opened on a Sunday—and she received a fine from Parkingeye. She paid the fine and went to appeal, but got no joy from the company. It turned out that Parkingeye was not up to date with the store opening times, and it should never have fined her as she was not there out of hours. Thanks to my intervention on her behalf, we got a small victory: the cameras were updated and she got her money back.

It should not require the intervention of MPs with these private companies to stop this rip-off Britain. It seems like the companies have a blank cheque and are exploiting law-abiding residents of my constituency and people around the country. I hope the Minister will respond positively to my call and that of colleagues for properly independent regulation and clarity for consumers, and a legally binding code of practice.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you once again, Ms Jardine. I, too, add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate.

I was reflecting, as we watched House staff go about their business, that Hansard will record all the words that have been spoken by Members in this debate. Indeed, they will mirror some of the historical records of ancient Rome and ancient China, when politicians complained about the quality of the construction of the Great Wall and many iconic buildings, and reflected on what could be done to ensure that buildings were constructed to the standard needed.

Of course, for each new generation the specific challenges change. We have different aspirations for the standard of our homes, as well as different technology and construction methods, and we need to ensure that what is built is fit for purpose. Although its focus has been on new homes, the debate has been wide ranging, touching on elements of housing tenure and the implications for the ability of occupiers to get change dealt with, the complications of the legal situation around warranties and insurances, and the challenges reflected in the ability or otherwise of local authorities to address complaints when they are brought forward.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) started out talking about tenant satisfaction. It is striking that, on the whole, people in the UK describe a high level of satisfaction with their accommodation, private renters being the most satisfied. Beneath that, however, as the hon. Gentleman set out, there are a number of challenges.

I encourage the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest to make contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—a forest theme seems to be emerging among Members raising this issue—who has a private Member’s Bill specifically on consumer protection for those who commission building work. That would begin to address in law many of the issues that have been raised this evening. Indeed, earlier today I informed a group of housing associations about the need to appoint a clerk of works for new developments—someone who is there every single day, monitoring on their behalf exactly what is being constructed, in order to ensure that the kind of problems that Members across the Chamber have described are not present when they come to undertake the landlord role in those properties.

The Federation of Master Builders has a number of proposals to ensure that the construction industry in the UK adopts significantly higher standards, not only building on the experience of other countries but reflecting the particular circumstances of the UK housing market.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Talking about future-proofing our homes, a key things we could do with an ageing population is to ensure that all new homes are built to higher accessibility and adaptability standards. The previous Government consulted on that, but never implemented anything. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a lost opportunity? By not implementing M4(2) standards, many new homes have been built that do not meet those higher standards.

[David Simmonds]

I would not describe that as a lost opportunity, but it is an opportunity that we need to consider. We recognise that we have a new Government with aspirations for housing. We had a Government who, despite all the challenges, set themselves a target of about 1 million homes and came very close to delivering on that during the life of the previous Parliament, but as I frequently point out in debates, we need to ensure that we are not simply thinking about the numbers of units. The 1.5 million target is not something we can achieve by packing the highest number of properties—studio flats—into various locations. We need to think about the nature of the homes and the type of housing that communities need, and about how a more nuanced approach can ensure that we build homes that support our housing market. For example, people may wish to downsize or to move because of disability, and to find accommodation that is fit for purpose in their local area.

A number of Members touched on the role that building control services play in signing off developments to assure that they are fit for purpose. All the debate, as reflected on by Members across the House, has demonstrated the complexity of this issue: fire safety is considered through the lens of one set of legislation; building control is about fitness of construction standards; the local authority has its planning responsibilities to ensure that what is built is what has planning consent; and, too, there is the insurance industry, which in essence is a private market that decides for itself what it considers fit to be an insurable and occupiable property. That has enormous influence.

In my constituency, I have the former Royal Air Force Lime Grove development constructed by Taylor Wimpey, where I have been engaging with constituents since I was first elected. That has been a very slow process, not least because things such as drainage have been built well below the standard required and can only be rectified if we are prepared to demolish all the homes that sit on top of that drainage. Those kinds of challenges are enormously complicated.

I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for the points they made. They described from their personal experience how they engaged with developments that took place in their constituencies in different ways—to enable new occupiers to bring to wider public attention the concerns that they identified, to hold local authorities to account for failure or lack of action, to deal with issues that were patently obvious and needed to be addressed, and to deal with some of the legal complexities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk described. It is all very well having a contract and legal rights in theory, but if those rights cannot be enforced, they do not lead down a useful path.

If we were in government, we would be taking forward these matters, but as we are in opposition, we are challenging the Government to consider them. I will make a few brief points in that respect. A number of Members have highlighted adoptable standards as a significant issue that needs addressing. In encouraging new planning applications to be delivered, I encourage the Government to consider how we will ensure that adoptable standards are complied with. Members on all sides have raised a number of examples of subsequent landlords, such as FirstPort, whose management of the sites has been completely inadequate and compounds the other problems that have been described.

Finally, as we consider the learning from the Grenfell report, which highlights just how complex these projects are to manage, can we ensure that the learning described by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), where the private sector and the local authority worked well together to bring innovation to bear and to ensure higher standards, is put into the structures of our legal approaches when it comes to all the different issues around development, housing, planning and building control described by Members across the Chamber this evening?

Local Government Finance

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, that it is not sustainable. It is also bad for children, families, councils and communities. If children are in temporary accommodation, they genuinely do not know what school they will go to next term. That is bad for children, who are the next generation of citizens.

We need systematic change. Central Government need to ease the burden on local authorities and spread out the load; build enough affordable homes so that we do not have 354,000 people who are homeless every single night in England; move care into the community, as the Darzi report recommended; and resolve the systemic issues so that social care providers do not face funding crises every single year. I add my modest voice to the calls of other hon. Members: will the Government please communicate the public health grant to local authorities so that they can set budgets for the next financial year in a meaningful way?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a good argument about the amount of local government funding that has to go into adult social care. The cuts that we saw under the Conservative Government have hit disabled and older people particularly hard. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new Labour Government’s uplift to local government funding will go at least some way towards addressing the critical cuts that have affected disabled people and social care?

[Shaun Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend and recognise the contribution that she has made for that section of our society. I agree that far more needs to happen, and I know that the Minister is as ambitious as the rest of us to ensure that those 14 years of austerity are addressed.

Giving councils the funding that they need is a welcome change from the constant cuts under the Conservatives, and it helps us to address the emergencies in the short term, but it is also important that we have a Government who accept that the long-term systemic issues require transformation, who do not pretend that everything is fine, and who accept that things need to change and that local government is faster, cheaper and more agile in delivering services on behalf of our communities and our citizens. As I said earlier, it is the best preventive service this country has.

The Government’s missions are ones that I and many Labour MPs back, but almost all of them run through local government. Whether it is safer streets, housing, social care or reforms to the NHS, it requires a confident, healthy local government sector that is able to deliver those services. As I said, this is a vital first step. I know that the Minister, who has exceptional experience in the sector and huge amounts of respect, also recognises that, and I look forward to seeing what comes next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I will give way to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). I hope that she will join me in opposing the council tax rise.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the cuts made to local government by the Conservatives when in government, through the grant, hit councils such as Bradford district and those mentioned by other hon. Members the hardest. That is why Bradford council was pushed into exceptional financing, has had to borrow and has had no choice but to put up council tax. Even with the council tax rise, it will still be below average. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my assessment?

[Robbie Moore]

I am pleased to see that the hon. Member has been given her Labour Whips’ handout note. It is interesting that not once did I hear her oppose the Labour Government’s increase in council tax. Not only that, but she did not call out the mismanagement of the Labour-controlled authority. I am referring to the whopping £50 million of taxpayers’ money spent on the music venue Bradford Live. It was promised that it would open for district of culture—we have been awarded city of culture in Bradford district, but I refer to it as district of culture because that money should be benefiting all the constituents across the Bradford district—and was estimated to cost around £25 million, but Labour councillors signed off an expenditure of £50 million. It is not even open to the public yet, even though it is city of culture now.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will not give way, because I do not think the hon. Lady will agree with me and many of the constituents across the Bradford district in opposing a nearly 10% increase in council tax. I hope that her constituents are watching.

Not only that; it also comes down to the absolute mismanagement of children’s services by Bradford council. Let us not forget that the previous Conservative Government had to step in and take children’s services off Bradford council because multiple damning Ofsted reports indicated that it was not through the fault of those providing children’s services and the level of care needed on the ground that the services were failing; instead, the disconnect in management at the very top of Bradford council was so bad and was failing our children that the Government had to step in and set up a children’s trust, which I must say is now having benefits.

Is it not ironic that the Labour Government will refer to our 14 years, but in 2021 the Labour administration at Bradford council submitted, as part of its statutory duty, a report stating that the council was in a “sound financial position”? Yet now the council is claiming that it is £150 million in debt and seeking a council tax increase of 9.9%, despite having requested a 15% increase. What on earth are this Government doing to hold to account local authorities that are failing constituents in the delivery of services? Where on earth is that accountability?

Bradford Live is not the only place on which huge amounts of taxpayers’ money has been misspent; One City Park, in the centre of Bradford, is another such venue. Car parks are being knocked down. That is not the job of a local authority. We should be relying on private sector inward investment to pay for regeneration projects. The job of a local authority is to focus on providing statutory-based services, not dipping in and out of regeneration schemes, and failing, at the cost of my constituents. Now we see through our city of culture status, which does not seem to be benefiting many of my constituents, the council wanting to construct a fancy art piece in Centenary Project. Who on earth in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency is benefiting as a result of that work?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. That point has been made not only by my hon. Friend, but by many Conservative Members. They say that the Government may, on the one hand, be passing down finance to local government, but they are, on the other hand, taking it away through the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is a classic socialist policy: they are taking with one hand and telling councils how to spend it with the other.

Not only are my constituents going to be exposed to an increase of just about 10% in council tax, without the opportunity for a referendum to decide, but they are experiencing vast cuts to local services. We have had two household waste and recycling centres close in my constituency. The council is selling off assets. There are assets that have not yet been protected, despite the warm words coming from our Labour local authority. Assets such as the Ilkley lido, Keighley market and shops are now being considered for disposal, creating added worry to many of the occupants of those shops that the council own.

We have seen parking charges rise in villages such as Addingham, which means that the shops, which need those people to buy their products and to benefit their local economy, are now facing detrimental impact. Where does the issue of fairness kick in? In my constituency, the local council, which has increased council tax, spend that hard-earned money on a huge amount of mismanaged projects, wastage projects and projects that are not even open.

I submitted a freedom of information request to find out whether my constituents were getting a fair level of spending in the constituency. I asked the local authority how much had been spent on highways in my constituency over a two-year period. There are five constituencies across the Bradford district, so one would expect the figure to be about 20%, but it was about 7% on average over the two-year period. No wonder the state of potholes in my constituency is far worse than in the inner-city centre of Bradford. How can I justify backing any increase in council tax when the spending is so dire?

I want to come back to the issue of accountability. The last chief executive of Bradford council, Kersten England, held that post for a long period, and oversaw the mismanagement of finance and the diabolical handling of children’s services before the last Conservative Government stepped in, but—jobs for the boys—what is she doing now? She is chairing city of culture. What an absolute disgrace, in terms of who is being held accountable by the Government.

Let me quote some of the concerns that constituents have raised with me about council tax being raised by 9.9%. One said, “I will be 70 next year, and I am still having to continue to work to make ends meet.” Another said, “I am disabled and now, as a result of this council tax hike, will have to use my own savings to look after myself.” Another said, “I am a single mother with three children and I simply can’t afford this.” Another said, “I didn’t ask the council to throw money at a concert venue that is not open”—and therefore not benefiting my constituents—“yet they have done that and are expecting me to pay the price.” Another said, “It’s difficult to see why I would like to live through my retirement, having to spend this much more.” The list goes on.

There is only one long-term solution, and I will be interested to see what the Government have to say about it. I have long been campaigning, along with the former Member of Parliament for Shipley, Philip Davies, to pull our two constituencies out of Bradford council and create our own unitary authority away from the mismanagement of Bradford city.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I give way to the hon. Member for Shipley.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and my predecessor put the idea of a breakaway council to his own Government, who rejected it as a complete non-starter. Let us work together across Bradford for the benefit of all our constituents.

[Robbie Moore]

I would be interested to hear what the hon. Lady’s constituents say. She has quoted the previous Administration completely wrongly, because they were absolutely behind the campaign to split the two constituencies apart. Indeed, I had many a meeting with the boundary commission. The challenge is that we have to get consent from the local authority, and we have a Labour-controlled authority that will not go anywhere near this campaign. Why? Because they know that my constituents are effectively the cash cow for the rest of Bradford. We are the dominant contributor to council tax and business rates, which feed city centre projects in the centre of Bradford.

I would like to understand the current Government’s position on my campaign to pull my constituency and Shipley—I believe I speak on behalf of many Shipley constituents—away from Bradford council so that we can have our own unitary authority, spend our own council tax and business rates in our own area, ensure that our local priorities are indeed prioritised, and leave Bradford city to make its decisions. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because that is the only way of achieving a long-term solution for my constituents across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Worth Valley and the wider constituency that I represent.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for opening the debate so eloquently, and I am grateful for the many excellent contributions that we have heard from Members on both sides of the House.

As a member of both the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform and the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I consider it a real privilege to be speaking in this debate. Back in 1996 I was a United Nations volunteer in Bosnia, which was holding its first elections after the Dayton peace agreement; I was there to make sure that those elections were free and fair. It was very moving to be involved in ensuring that the postal ballots of people whose lives had been so disrupted by ethnic cleansing were received and were counted. That underlined for me the importance of giving everyone the chance to vote, and to know that their vote counts.

It pains me that here we are, in Britain in 2025, and those things are not true. We have heard many other Members talk about the disengagement with politics today, which I think is reflected in turnouts—not everyone is voting—and we have seen some of that further undermined by the last Conservative Government, who denied people votes through the introduction of voter ID. Independent oversight is also important for free and fair elections, yet the Electoral Commission has again been weakened. Many aspects of our democracy have been undermined, with the result that people do not feel confident that their vote and their voice count. As we have heard, millions have found themselves unrepresented in this Parliament, with six out of 10 voters ending up with a local MP for whom they did not vote.

We have heard today about the extent of tactical voting. I was elected in a marginal seat up in Shipley. We have been told that across the country, one in three people voted tactically. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), I spent a great deal of time on the doorstep trying to persuade people who would otherwise have voted Liberal Democrat, or indeed Green, that we needed to join forces, and asking them please to lend me their vote. While I am extremely grateful to the many voters who did indeed lend me their votes, and whom I now stand here and represent—and, of course, I would love it if they voted for me again at the next general election—I would prefer them to vote for their first preference, as, indeed, would they.

That is true of marginal seats, but we have also heard today that in safe seats many people feel disenfranchised, concluding that it is not even worth voting for the party they would otherwise support because it will not make a difference. Even those who are voting for the party that is winning those safe seats feel that they are under-represented, because if there is a very large majority, many of those votes are still represented by only one person in this place. For all sorts of reasons, people do not feel that their vote counts, and this is breeding distrust in politics. Just 12% of people in this country trust political parties. We have to reverse that. People must feel that their voice counts, and it does not help when political parties campaign only in marginal seats.

I turn to the benefits of PR, for which I am a strong advocate. I saw as a young politics student in Germany how PR led to more stable government. In my work in health and social care, I saw Governments elected under PR in the Netherlands and Germany pursuing long-term strategic policies on key issues such as social care reform, on which there is much common ground between Members from across the House. It was consensual and collaborative politics.

We know that the public do not like the heckling and braying that is common in this place on a Wednesday lunchtime. Some of our best debates are those in which we are in some agreement—for example, on climate and nature, or on violence against women and girls. I hope that with a system of PR, we would have better politics, and that is why I support the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform. The Government could get on the front foot, show that they are serious about addressing our unrepresentative voting system, and stem the rise in disengagement and distrust in politics. We could bring the public with us and rebuild trust in our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young]

rose—

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

I am spoilt for choice and I do not have much time left. I will give way to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and then to the hon. Member for Shipley.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“Hate is the worst 4 letter word that exists”,

said Holocaust survivor Mathilde Middleberg.

I am deeply honoured to be called in the debate. As movingly articulated by the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), 80 years has passed since the liberation of Auschwitz, but it is heartbreaking to see acts of genocide, hate and evil still happening across the world and increasing threats from a new wind of far-right. The horrors of the camps must never be forgotten, and the testimonies of the survivors are still ringing in our ears and are as relevant today as they were 80 years ago, because what is 80 years in the history of the world but a blink of an eye? Yet, sadly, current events suggest that some people today need a reminder of the lessons of that horror.

For the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, the University of Leicester in my constituency published extracts from the east midlands oral history archive of an interview with Leicester nurse Erti Wilford. Erti treated the survivors of Belsen for two years after its liberation by the British Army. She spoke of approaching Bergen-Belsen and smelling the dreadful smells from as far away as five miles, saying that she had:

“Never seen so much suffering and lice and filth. At Belsen they were just bag of bones and it was just dreadful, but some of them lived, it was quite incredible”.

Erti recalls the excitement of a camp doctor finally being allowed to deliver a baby and return it back to its mother rather than hand it to a guard for execution.

We must remember the names of Anne and Margot Frank, whose final resting place is Bergen-Belsen. They unfortunately died of typhus approximately a month before the liberation.

One would hope that such experiences mean that hate and genocidal and Nazi actions are a thing of the past, but sadly that is not the case. As articulated by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), in Bosnia, the trucks arrived and they said, “Men, young and old, tall and short—get on and we will transport you to safety.” Within two weeks, 8,000 Muslim men, women and children were executed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend hon. Members for their contributions. Would the hon. Member join me in congratulating organisations such as Remembering Srebrenica, which has done so much to remember those Muslim boys and men killed during the Bosnian war, which is now some 30 years ago—we will be remembering that anniversary this year—and to learn lessons as well?

[Shockat Adam]

I welcome that intervention. All the work being done is absolutely vital.

We have seen genocide in Rwanda, where close to 1 million Tutsi were killed, and now, as we speak, in Sudan. If “never again” means anything, it means that the international community must take decisive action to pursue the perpetrators through the International Court of Justice. Instead, the far right is almost being indulged. Earlier this week, people who rioted on 6 January, who very much have far-right tendencies, were forgiven. Many of them were radicalised online.

This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme is to take action “for a better future”. That is why I am delighted to hear from the Minister that education will remain a priority. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we will live them again. Inter-faith work is absolutely vital. That is why I am proud to have been part of a team that set up an inter-faith group so that religions can talk to each other, not point fingers, and build bridges, not burn them. We must also take action against and hold social media firms and publishers to account for far-right misinformation.

I end with the words of Elie Wiesel:

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

6. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of abolishing residential leaseholds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fully appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents to take advantage of the provisions in the 2024 Act that will make it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to buy their freehold. Unfortunately, we discovered on assuming office that the previous Government had passed the Act with a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions, including those relating to enfranchisement valuations, from operating as intended. We need to fix those flaws through primary legislation, and we intend to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Anna Dixon]

Earlier this month, together with about 40 Labour MPs, I met the managing director of FirstPort. I raised the case of 90-year-old Tom, who lives in a retirement complex in Bingley in my constituency. Like many of the residents whose stories we shared, he has been hit by extortionate service charges that have risen way above inflation. Does the Minister agree that stronger regulation of managing agents is needed to protect pensioners like Tom and others in leasehold flats from unaffordable housing costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are very much aware that some managing agents provide a very poor quality of service to people like Tom and leaseholders across the country. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. As such, we have made it clear that we will strengthen the regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service, and we are considering carefully the recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector.