Illegal Off-road Bikes: North-east

Julie Minns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lola McEvoy]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a clear and coherent point.

I ask the Minister to consider bolstering police powers to support our communities, which regularly report antisocial behaviour in the form of balaclava-clad battery bike riders. The police’s problem is that they do not have the resources to send out a police helicopter and a full squad to chase down those people every time antisocial behaviour is reported. The issue in Darlington and across the north-east is that e-bikes are also the vehicles of choice for organised crime.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on this issue. It is helpful to highlight that we are talking about two types of bike: dirt bikes, which have been around for more than 100 years, and e-bikes. The problem is that dirt bikes are unlicensed, so riding them on a road, in a park and so on is illegal. Similarly, when a non-compliant electrically assisted pedal cycle is ridden on a road or in a park, it immediately becomes illegal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and the horrible kits that create them should be banned? A number of police, fire and crime commissioners across the country have asked for that. Does she feel that the solution for dirt bikes is that they should have a registered keeper when they are sold and that, if they are going to be used off road, they should have a statutory off road notification?

[Lola McEvoy]

My learned and hon. Friend is the expert on this issue in the House, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. In the interests of time, I will not reiterate the points I agree with, because I agree with all of them, and they were part of my speech, but I ask the Minister to please address them.

I agree that we need to ban the sale of e-bikes, but I am concerned about the use of antisocial behaviour as a reason against the police being forced to take action on this issue. I would like the prolific use of off-road electric bikes in our communities to be increased to a criminal offence.

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The list does not include prison officers, because the transitional arrangements apply to those cohorts of workers that the Migration Advisory Committee recognises on national pay scales in health and education for the purposes of the immigration rules. The right hon. Lady will know that it is a very small number of prison officers who will settle at 10 years, but let me confirm to her and the House that I have been discussing these measures with the Secretary of State for Justice and I will do everything I can to make sure that the Prison Service has the labour it needs in the future.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The previous Conservative Government’s approach to net migration can at best be described as marrying in haste and repenting at leisure, so will the Home Secretary please assure my Carlisle constituents that the new settlement rules will ensure that future immigration is built on a long-term commitment and not on impulsive short-term fixes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also say that “repent at leisure” would apply if there was, in fact, any repentance from the Conservatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for her thoughtful question. We hear what she says about e-bikes. We are having conversations with the College of Policing and others about how we can ensure that the police can respond in the way that they want to. In a big operation last month, the Met arrested 187 people and seized 157 vehicles in a crackdown on e-bikes, and Met police are using Sur-Ron bikes in that operation, so we are very much having conversations with colleagues to see what more we can do.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Cumbria police do really good work tackling the use of illegal e-bikes, but with ever-growing numbers of them hitting our streets every single week, Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner and I believe that the single biggest help that we could give the police would be to ban the sale of illegal e-bikes, as my ten-minute rule Bill proposes. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade about regulation to achieve that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue. We are talking to the Department for Transport about exactly what we need to do to tackle the scourge of e-bikes and e-scooters. Every MP in this place will be facing the same challenge, and I hope that everybody would agree that we cannot allow this kind of behaviour to continue. We are looking at what else can be done. We have changed the powers in the Bill to move us in the right direction. I am talking to the police about what more support they need, and we will continue to have those conversations across Government.

Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. First, I want to thank the 720,772 British men and women who signed our petition demanding the mass deportation of illegal migrants—a policy position that has moved from the so-called mad fringe to the acceptable mainstream in less than two years. The question is no longer whether Britain has a problem. We know the problem; it has been well documented. Now we need solutions. Restore Britain is the first and only political party to publish a comprehensive plan not just to stop future illegal immigration but to remove those who have no legal right to remain in this country. All of them—every man, woman and child—must be deported. A Restore Britain Government will do exactly that.

I am not going to stand here and outline the problem; we all know what is wrong. I will tell this Parliament exactly how we can remove millions of illegal migrants. As we have seen time and again, deportation is routinely frustrated by a carefully designed maze of legislation, international treaties and legal challenges. A Restore Britain Government would repeal or amend the domestic legislation that prevents swift deportation; repeal the Human Rights Act; withdraw from the European convention on human rights; and remove the refugee convention from domestic immigration law.

We would also introduce what we call the great clarification Act, reaffirming that we in these buildings have the final say on immigration policy and allowing Parliament to overturn court rulings that obstruct the democratic will on immigration—not activist judges, but elected politicians held to account by the British electorate.

Legal reform would just be the start, setting the scene for the most ambitious set of deportations ever seen. The real question is this: how can we remove all those with no legal right to be in Britain? The answer is making illegal residence impossible to sustain—as we call it, the “hostile environment”: no legal employment, no legal tenancy, no access to public services and no banking facilities. That single reform would become the backbone of our immigration enforcement, making life so incredibly uncomfortable and unsustainable that many would simply deport themselves.

Employers must face real-time right-to-work checks. The gig economy, construction, hospitality and other sectors with persistent illegal working would face regular audits. If Uber Eats, Deliveroo and the rest were found to be employing illegal migrants, they would be fined, prosecuted or even shut down. The farce of young Sudanese illegal migrant men on mopeds delivering spring rolls and pepperoni pizzas in every British suburb would end. The Government must lead by example. Every company bidding for public contracts would have to demonstrate strict compliance with immigration law before receiving any taxpayer money—environmental, social and governance regulations, but for mass deportations.

Housing enforcement would change completely. Every landlord would be required to carry out right-to-rent checks at the beginning of every tenancy. Those who knowingly rented properties to illegal migrants would face severe financial penalties, and persistent offenders could face asset seizure and prosecution. Owners of houses in multiple occupation who imposed gangs of feral illegal men on quiet British villages would be prosecuted. Public officials who knowingly placed dangerous and unvetted migrants near schools and nurseries would be sent to prison. Homelessness legislation must also be amended so that illegal migrants are no longer recycled through local authority housing systems but instead enter the immigration enforcement process. We would not house illegal migrant tramps; we would deport them. It is really that simple.

Healthcare would no longer operate as a loophole. So-called “safe surgeries” must end. Proof of lawful status must become a requirement for routine NHS access. Illegal migrants in hospitals would be reported to immigration enforcement, as they should be now. We are not evil: emergency care would be provided, but they would be deported as soon as it was medically safe for that to happen.

Government Departments would finally begin sharing data across the Home Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NHS, local councils, the Department for Work and Pensions and banks. Instead of operating in silos, the Government would work as one system to identify those with no legal right to remain. The full power of the British state would be directed to implement this one policy: mass deportation. Financial enforcement would become another powerful tool. Banks would verify immigration status before accounts were opened. Existing accounts without lawful status would be frozen or closed. The hostile environment measures would force out hundreds of thousands; a concurrent programme of enforced deportations would be implemented alongside that to remove the rest.

Restore Britain proposes a major expansion of immigration enforcement, recruiting thousands of additional officers, drawing on former police officers, military veterans and experienced investigators. A specific recruitment campaign for military veterans would be implemented, drawing former soldiers into field enforcement roles. Detention capacity would be expanded dramatically, including through the use of purpose-built detention facilities capable of holding thousands awaiting removal. Commercial airlines would continue to be used where appropriate. Dedicated charter flights would become routine. Military transport aircraft would also be available where operationally necessary. Time would not be wasted.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I would like to understand the point about detention centres. How many places would be required, and over what period? How does the hon. Gentleman think that this is even feasible, given that the previous Government managed to build only one new prison in 14 years?

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am not going to go into detail; it is all in this policy document. I will give her one to take away.

Specialist detention facilities would be constructed near airfields to hasten the process. Britain would negotiate far stronger bilateral return agreements while working with allies to create a deportation NATO—a coalition of like-minded countries applying co-ordinated diplomatic and economic pressure on Governments that refused to accept back their own citizens. That would include harmonised visa sanctions, co-ordinated suspension of visa issuance, foreign aid suspension, targeted trade measures and tariffs, remittance and dividend controls and taxation, and a rapid response returns taskforce. Pakistan would be the first country to feel the full force of those measures.

Sanctions from a single country are easier to absorb, but a unified bloc of economies and travel markets creates systematic and severe pressure. Co-ordinated restrictions would also close loopholes whereby nationals bypass one state’s measures by moving to another jurisdiction. All that would be delivered alongside the credible and proven threat of action. Do it once, hard enough, and it would not be required again.

We must also revoke all asylum grants awarded following illegal entry and retrospectively revoke protection so that those individuals are also removed. If someone arrived in Britain illegally on a small boat, they would be deported, regardless of what their current status may claim. People ask whether this is achievable. Restore Britain says yes, but only if the Government finally demonstrate the robust political will required.

What about cost? Britain is already paying billions: billions every year on accommodation, billions on asylum, billions on public services for illegal migrants, billions supporting people who have no legal entitlement to remain here. In the short term, ending those long-term costs would offset the expenditure required to carry out removals, with estimated annual savings of more than £12 billion once the programme was complete. Put simply, mass deportation pays for itself.

This policy is popular, cost-effective and possible. I have just one question for my fellow MPs: what are we all waiting for? This is a costed, comprehensive and legally sound plan that would, as those 720,772 British patriots demand, remove the illegal migrant population. We have outlined exactly what needs to happen, in excruciating detail. It can be done. It must be done. It will be done. I invite Members to help themselves to a “Mass Deportations” policy document on their way out. It makes glorious reading.

High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Julie Minns Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I agree that it sounds like a very helpful proposal. On the subject of permits and businesses, there is much more the Government can do to restrict the permitting of high street bookmakers, which many Members have spoken about.

In the Netherlands, public authorities are allowed to conduct integrity checks on individuals and businesses before granting licences and permits, and local authorities have the power to refuse applications if they think there is a serious risk that a permit could be used for criminal activities. I can see the benefit of that, as the police or other intelligence agencies could advise whether individuals are linked to organised crime, or whether it is reasonable to assume that 12 mini-markets and vape shops in one small town centre are operating legitimately.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned mini-marts. We had none in Carlisle 12 months ago, and now we have at least 12 or 15. They are all distinguished by having wrappered windows that cannot be seen through. There is a presumption in planning guidance that windows should be active, whereas these are obviously inactive. Does my hon. Friend think that more needs to be done to enforce existing planning laws to ensure that these shops do not open or, if they do, that they are closed down for contravening planning guidelines?

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Why are they wrapping the windows? The first question must be: what are they trying to hide? We want our town centres to be welcoming, warm and open. That practice is completely against that type of approach.

Could the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering similar measures to the Dutch Bibob Act? There are also far too many loopholes in Companies House, which BBC research reveals is wide open to abuse. Our dodgy shops group is proposing that greater powers be given to Companies House to identify and clamp down on fake company directors, with escalating fines or a “three strikes and you’re out” system.

Crime and Policing Bill

Julie Minns Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it.

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

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.

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend is right. It is an acknowledgement that action needs to be taken. That is reflected in other areas of action that the Government are already committed to and those we are likely to see further down the track, which I will come to later.

I think we are right to raise the length of the consultation and say that, while we may appreciate the necessity of the Government wanting to consult when the shift up to 12 months is so significant, the consultation period should not be unduly or unnecessarily lengthy.

Firearms Licensing

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

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.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a very strong point about evidence-based policymaking. She will be aware of the truism of what we do in this place: that we need to draw lines in legislation between freedoms and responsibilities, and in this case between rights and public protection. She acknowledges that the Government should certainly keep the matter under review and that they have come forward with a set of proposals; but, like many other speakers, she seems to be opposed to this particular proposal. Does she agree that the Government should have the opportunity to at least review the policies? Is she effectively saying that the Government need to go back to the drawing board and look at the matter again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Member will know, the Department for Business and Trade has the lead on fireworks. I have had a conversation with a colleague in the last couple of weeks about that exact point, but that speaks to the point I was making that we can do lots of things at different times. His question is a bit of what-aboutery, but the point about taking seriously the issues with fireworks, and the regime around them, is valid and of course I will take it away.

The hon. Member asked why we are consulting, which is a fair question. We feel a sense of responsibility to make sure that the system works as well as it could and should. I think that everybody would agree that if it needs to change, we need to change it.

A point was made about the Keyham shootings, and the senior coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. He concluded that a shotgun is no less lethal a weapon than a firearm if misused. The Independent Office for Police Conduct recommended, following its independent investigation, that the two should be aligned, and that legislation and necessarily related national guidance should be

“amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.”

Other reports have recommended the same, including one by the Scottish Affairs Committee—it was pointed out during the debate that, for obvious reasons, a lot of licences are granted in Scotland. We are looking at this, but that is not to say that we have made a decision. We are open-minded about what would be the right course.

So, on training, yes; on centralising, potentially—we are looking at that; and on improving the licensing system, definitely. The police have recently started producing monthly data on the time it takes for people to get their licence, which is a good way of ensuring that they are operating as they should.

[Ms Minns]

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.

[Sarah Jones]

I am very happy to praise Dave Allen, of whom I am a big fan. My hon. Friend is right that there are big inconsistencies and that some forces are doing very well. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) pointed out, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire is particularly problematic, given the struggles that it has. The inspector highlighted that, and the thematic review will give us more data on that front.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

We are very grateful to Jonathan Hall for the work that he has done. We are taking forward all his recommendations on strengthening our state threats powers, including the development of a proscription-like tool that will allow us to ban the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to reduce pull factors for migrants seeking to arrive in the UK illegally.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With asylum claims falling in Europe and rising here, we must reduce the incentives that pull people here. The permanence of refugee status in this country is clearly a pull factor, and we are therefore making it temporary. The ability to melt into our illegal economy lures people here, so we have raised immigration raids to record levels. Effective removals send a clear message, and returns are now up by about a quarter under this Government.

[Ms Minns]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts local wages and fuels organised immigration crime, and this Government will not stand for it. Since we came to power, enforcement action has increased nationwide, with an 83% rise in the number of illegal-working arrests, and we will be stepping up that action even further in the year ahead.

Town and City Centre Safety

Julie Minns Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Baggy Shanker]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—my fantastic MP—for her intervention. She is absolutely right: it is a partnership of investment, but people need to feel safe in our city centre.

As my constituent John told me, we can see how much effort and investment are being put into our city, from building housing to breathing new life into the shops and spaces in our city centre. I want every single resident and visitor to be able to take their family out for the day, meet up with friends and enjoy what the city centre has to offer, but the long-term success of regeneration depends on the community feeling safe to enjoy our city centre. As John also told me, he has real concerns about the safety of his family when they are out and about in Derby. Seeing drug users loitering on St Peter’s Street and on paths by the River Derwent has put him off popping to the shops and has stopped his wife going out running in our city centre altogether.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes the point about people needing to feel safe in their communities. One of the issues that many of us hear from our constituents about is illegal e-bikes speeding through our parks and town centres. Many reputable dealers, such as Bikeseven and Palace Cycles in my constituency, would never sell an illegal e-bike, but they are widely available. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to ban the sale of illegal e-bikes and cut the problem off at source?

[Baggy Shanker]

It is simple: if they are illegal, they should be banned.

Unfortunately, John and his family are not alone. I hear those concerns reflected at my surgeries and in my inbox time and again. Families such as John’s tell me that they are worried about the drug and alcohol abuse they see on our streets.

Police Reform White Paper

Julie Minns Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be local policing areas within the new regional forces, with neighbourhood policing as the absolute bedrock of those local policing areas. I would not be bringing forward these reforms if I was not absolutely certain that we are absolutely protecting local policing in the set-up of the new model for policing, so that every area gets the type of policing it needs and deserves.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. I can provide her with that reassurance, and the Policing Minister spoke to her police, fire and crime commissioner today.