Julie Minns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Prison Smuggling: Drones · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to help tackle the smuggling of contraband by drones into prisons.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Prison Smuggling: Drones · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend outline what learnings the Government have taken from international expertise to develop and shape counter-drone measures in UK prisons?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is estimated that illegal waste dumping costs the taxpayer over £1 billion. Given that this activity can and does happen at permitted sites, can the Minister assure the House that the waste crime unit has access to both the permit return data to the Environment Agency and the landfill tax returns to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that that fraudulent activity can be identified? Will she meet me to discuss the Hespin Wood landfill site in my constituency?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion on the issue of dodgy shops. I would go as far to call her a guru on dodgy shops, if she will accept that accolade. Carlisle, like her constituency, is blighted by minimarts, vape shops and so on. I am attracted to Lords amendment 333, but superficially so. I think it is right that we get this correct. Does she agree with me that passing Lords amendment 333 would mark a significant shift in the law? It is important we get this right and consult, and what the Government are doing is extending the power, but with a guarantee to consult.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  On the speed of licensing, I can recommend none more strongly than the example of Cumbria constabulary, which has really put its house in order over the last 18 months, since David Allen became the police, fire and crime commissioner for Cumbria. I urge others to apply its good practice in the rest of the country.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely incumbent upon any Government to carefully consider any issue. In this regard, I urge the Minister to approach the consultation with an open mind and not to have a predetermined outcome for the conclusion. For many, this proposal represents a far-reaching regulatory shift, with consequences that might not have yet been fully understood. The anxiety that has been expressed to me and other Members is not rooted in resistance to safety. My constituents want safe gun use. They want dangerous individuals to be prevented from accessing firearms. What they question is whether creating a larger, potentially more congested system will achieve those outcomes, or whether it risks the opposite by overwhelming the departments responsible for ensuring public safety and taking away these incredibly useful and effective pest control tools from farmers, landowners and pest control agents. There are other, more targeted and effective, steps that might be taken. Properly resourcing our police licensing teams, ensuring consistent national standards and rigorous application of the Home Office’s statutory guidance should be the priority, so that those who should never have access to a shotgun do not get one under any licence and those who use them responsibly in their work and on their land are not penalised for doing so. I therefore urge Ministers to ensure that any reform focuses on what will genuinely improve safety—properly resourced licensing teams, consistent national standards and measures that address illegal firearms—rather than imposing burdens on those who use shotguns responsibly for work, sport and conservation. Evidence, not symbolism, must guide our decisions. I encourage Members across the House to examine the proposal closely during the consultation to ensure that public safety is strengthened without causing disproportionate harm to rural communities.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate. I also thank the 323 residents of my constituency who signed the petition and the many more constituents who contacted me directly about the matter. It goes without saying that our first duty as legislators should be to safeguard the public, but in doing so we also have a responsibility to ensure that any change we make is evidence-based, proportionate and operationally sound. Any loss of life is a tragedy and it is important that lessons are learned; but, most importantly, in responding to tragedy we must be mindful of being led by the evidence. I note in that the response to the petition the Government state: “legally held shotguns have been used in a number of homicides and other incidents in recent years including the fatal shootings in…Plymouth, in…2021…Recommendations relating to strengthening shotgun controls had been made to the Government by the Coroner in his preventing future deaths report issued in May 2023.” I would like to place on the record my deeply felt sympathy for the families and friends of all of the victims of that incident, and all those of other shootings. I have taken time to read the coroner’s report and note that the coroner made several recommendations, including nationally accredited training for firearms licensing staff; proper assessment of medical information; ensuring decisions are made at the correct seniority level; improved oversight, governance and audit systems; clearer guidance and consistent application of national policies; and better communication and information sharing. All those recommendations, I believe, are supported right across the House. However, the coroner was silent on the merging of the two licensing regimes. That is not to say there might not be advantages in doing so. Rather, we need to be clear that the coroner’s report in that case did not necessarily recommend it. Key organisations across the shooting sector, as we have heard, including the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the National Farmers Union, have raised significant concerns about potential changes. They argue that merging the two licensing systems is unnecessary and disproportionate and that current evidence does not support the claim that such a merger would enhance public safety. With those concerns in mind, it is also important to note that crime involving legally held firearms remains at historically low levels. At the same time, evidence suggests that licensing departments in our local police forces have been overstretched and inconsistent in applying the guidance as it stands. Adding hundreds of thousands of additional shotgun holders into a system designed for far fewer section 1 applicants risks creating unmanageable delays and increasing the administrative burden and substantial cost to certificate holders and the police. It has consequences far beyond the shooting sports community. Rural economies, pest control, game management, conservation and the businesses that rely on seasonal shooting activity could all be placed under pressure.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Illegal Migrants: Pull Factors · Hansard source

  More

  Illegal immigration, illegal working and illegal trading frequently go hand in hand, and all too often manifest themselves in the proliferation of dodgy shops on our high streets. While I welcome the shop raids in my constituency last summer, without action to tackle illegality at source the police and trading standards face a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Can the Minister please assure my constituents that this Government will redouble their efforts to clamp down on both illegal immigration and illegal working?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Every month, people across our constituencies are injured by illegal e-bikes being ridden at 30, 40 and 50 mph through our town centres and parks, but for every illegal e-bike that the police seize and crush, another 10 hit our streets, because they are too freely available to buy. That is why Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner and 28 other police commissioners across the UK are now backing my Bill, which would ban the sale of illegal e-bikes. Will the Prime Minister set out what action the Government will take to protect the public and ban the sale of these monster bikes?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marketing, sale, and supply of electrically assisted pedal cycles that fall outside the class of electrically assisted pedal cycles prescribed under the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and of equipment capable of converting a pedal cycle into a such a vehicle; and for connected purposes. The Bill is without doubt a mouthful, and it may seem technical and dry, but at its core it is about safety, clarity and responsibility. It is about protecting pedestrians, other road users, lawful cyclists, constituents and our communities from vehicles that look like bikes but behave like motorbikes. It is about stopping the sale of illegal e-bikes and the kits that turn ordinary, everyday pedal bikes into illegal monster bikes. E-bikes, when they conform to the law, are a force for good. They mean cleaner journeys, better public health and less congestion. By law, e-bike motors should have a maximum continuous power output of 250 W and should cut out when the bike reaches 15.5 mph. Going faster than that is perfectly permissible without a motor. Indeed, I am told that for some people it is entirely possible—a fact that I am sure I will see at first hand when the Tour de France travels through my constituency next summer. But those speeds, as those athletes will demonstrate, will be reached without motorised assistance. The sad reality, as Members know, is that right now, as I speak, there are illegal e-bikes on the streets of our constituencies that are reaching dangerously high speeds. Those e-bikes and the conversion kits used to create them are being sold with batteries capable of reaching speeds far beyond 15.5 mph. A bike seized and tested earlier this month in my constituency of Carlisle found that the bike was capable of 37 mph. Another e-bike seized in my constituency was found to have a battery capable of achieving 56 mph. Nationally, police have seized e-bikes capable of 70 mph. These are not minor issues. These are illegal vehicles that can, and do, kill. Last year, in Australia, a pedestrian was killed after he was struck by an illegally modified e-bike. Last October, a 60-year-old woman was killed in New York by an e-bike capable of travelling at 30 mph. Last summer, in Greater Manchester, a 70-year-old woman was left in a coma and with life-changing injuries after being hit by an e-bike advertised with a top speed of 47 mph, and in 2024 an 86-year-old man from Lancashire was hit and killed by an illegal e-bike. We cannot continue to let this happen. These, frankly, are illegal, unregistered, untaxed monster bikes without MOTs. These bikes have become a menace not just on the streets of Carlisle, but in communities across the UK. Their speed and lack of traceability makes them the perfect accomplice in robbery, phone theft and drug dealing. Our local neighbourhood police teams have done a good job of seizing and crushing these illegal machines, but they are fighting a losing battle. Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen, who is in the Public Gallery today, believes that the time has come to stop the problem at the source by banning the sale of these illegal e-bikes and the conversion kits that create them. I agree, which is why I am introducing the Bill. Online marketplaces and overseas suppliers sell high-powered e-bikes and conversion kits with minimal checks, scant safety information and no clear liability. Too often, buyers assume that a product is legal because the website does not say otherwise. We already accept that some dangerous items simply must not be sold to the public. We ban the retail sale of flick knives because they are capable of killing and causing serious injury; we restrict the sale of F4 fireworks to those who are trained to use them safely; and we ban the use, import and supply of asbestos-containing materials, because they can kill. Those bans are about removing from the market products that are known to harm and kill. Monster e-bikes harm and kill. The Bill is targeted and proportionate. It would continue to allow the sale and enjoyment of legal e-bikes, but it would shut down the sale and marketing of illegal monster bikes and the kits used to create them. It would give regulators and the police powers to seize and destroy non-compliant bikes and conversion kits at the point of sale, and it would create clear offences and penalties for retailers of illegal products. Cutting off the sale and marketing of illegal e-bikes would remove dangerous products before they reach our streets. The Bill recognises that enforcement must be paired with support. It would give trading standards bodies, the police and other regulators targeted powers to act against sellers and online marketplaces. It would require clear consumer information so that buyers are not misled into thinking that high-powered machines are road legal. It would also help riders who rely on e-bikes for work to continue to access safe, legal e-bikes. The Bill is a practical, evidence-led measure that is intended to reduce the harm we see in our communities, protect the vulnerable and make our streets safer. As I have set out, it draws on the same logic that led Parliament to ban the sale of other dangerous items. It must be the case that when a product is capable of killing or causing injury, and its sale cannot be reasonably regulated, it simply should not be sold. Let us be clear: lawful, safe e-bikes are part of our future. What the Bill would do it introduce measured, necessary steps to make our streets safer, to protect our constituents, and to stop the sale of monster e-bikes. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Julie Minns, Luke Akehurst, Liam Byrne, Anna Dixon, Tim Farron, Fabian Hamilton, Tom Hayes, Alex McIntyre, Jim Shannon and Bradley Thomas present the Bill. Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 372).

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Last Friday I held a community meeting with Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen. Since his election just 20 months ago, he has been focused on taking those officers who were forced into the back room under the last Government and putting them back on the frontline. Can the Home Secretary please reassure me, and our police, fire and crime commissioner, that the reforms she has outlined today will continue to strengthen frontline policing, particularly in rural areas such as Cumbria?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in congratulating our rural crime teams on their work. I invite her to pay tribute to Special Constable Susan Holliday who has served almost 40 years as a special constable and was awarded the British empire medal in the new year’s honours. I am delighted to invite the Minister to my constituency to meet Susan Holliday.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to Carlisle NFU and my constituents who have raised this issue with me over the last 14 months, and I thank the Minister and his colleagues for engaging constructively and listening to those representations. North Cumbrian farmers face land price increases as a result of forestry firms snapping up large parcels of land and large landowners seeking to abuse the IHT system by hiding their wealth, and this is an important step in balancing the need to tackle that abuse and rising land prices and the need to raise the revenue required for our village schools, local health services and to tackle crime. Does the Minister agree that this now achieves that balance?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Women and girls must have confidence both in the strategy and that the perpetrators of the violence against them will be brought to book. However, when I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to review a decision not to prosecute a case of violent assault against one of my constituents, it pushed back its own deadline for a decision. Can the Minister please reassure me and my constituent that the strategy has the full support of all Government Departments, including the Attorney General’s Office, so that we build a justice system that has the confidence of women and girls?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Over the summer, large quantities of illegal cigarettes were seized in shops in my constituency. However, many of those shops were reopened the very next day. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have to make it easier to shut these shops down permanently so that we put these criminal networks out of business forever?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. One of my constituents was ripped off to the tune of £19,000 when the builder walked off the job part-way through. However, when they went to trading standards and the police, they were told that, because the work had begun, it was a civil and not a criminal matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to protect our constituents who are caught by that loophole?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Our constituents deserve a prison system that they can have confidence in, yet prisoner releases in error increased every year since 2021. Despite that, there was no call for an investigation and there were no reforms. Can the Justice Secretary therefore reassure my Carlisle constituents that it is this Government who will implement the findings of Dame Lynne Owens’s investigation and restore the confidence that was eroded under the previous Government?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past year, my office and I have supported a depressing number of constituents who have been failed—failed by the police and social services for not listening to reports of coercive control; failed by the family court for not recognising who the victim is; and failed by the Crown Prosecution Service for not proceeding to prosecute cases of domestic abuse because it does not believe the victim to be credible. What steps is the Minister taking with colleagues from across Government to ensure that women are believed and listened to?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  In 1835, John Kent became the first black police officer not just in the Carlisle constabulary, but in any police force in Britain. I recently approached Historic England to ask that John Kent be commemorated with a blue plaque in Carlisle. Does the Minister agree that John Kent’s plaque should be just one of hundreds that Historic England should add to commemorate and celebrate the contribution of black Britons?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is nevertheless a suspended sentence. By passing new clause 1, we are saying that serious offences—whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in the community—carry consequences, including the possibility of removal from the UK.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country. The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them. Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said: “The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.” —[ Official Report , 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.] It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I really do apologise, Ms Ghani. Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended. Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue. New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system. Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Domestic Abuse Aggravated Offences · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, who had been the victim of historical domestic abuse by both her partner and her children, recently raised with me the need for a clearer understanding and definition of child-to-parent abuse. At the time of her abuse, she did not know that what her children were doing could be classified as domestic abuse, and both the police and social services failed to understand that she was the victim, not her children. Will the Minister provide an update on the work to reach a legal definition of child-to-parent abuse.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and strongly welcome the enforcement action taken recently by UK Border Force, Cumbria police and local trading standards to crack down on illegal trading and illegal retail work in my Carlisle constituency. Will she reassure my constituents that there will be no let-up in that enforcement activity, and that the same rigour will be applied to migrant workers employed as delivery riders?