Labour Party MP for Carlisle since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
308
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
5
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£1,462
3 of 5 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Carlisle | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. Gifts, non-UK sources | International Cricket Council - £500.00 | £500 | Labour | Register record | |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Food and Drink Federation - £382.00 | £382 | Labour | Register record | |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Citadel Policy & Communications Ltd - £580.00 | £580 | Labour | Register record | |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Member of the Carlisle Town Deal Board. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Trustee of Friends of Carlisle Victorian and Turkish Baths. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that diversifying Cumbria’s economy is key to our economic growth. Will he therefore support efforts to realise the potential of RAF Spadeadam as a future hub for rocket testing and innovation?
My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point about the issues that were raised with restrictions on pornography. However, does he accept that the difference there was that we were trying to age-verify someone who was over 18 so that they could access pornography, and there was ID available? I grappled with the challenges of age verification some 20 years ago in the mobile sector. Does he agree that we need to have confidence in this? I do not think we are quite there yet when it comes to age-verifying 16-year-olds, who do not have ID.
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?
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about villages. In my constituency, a number of villages do not have a shop or a bus, and so on, but they did have the public switched telephone network. Ofcom has overseen the switch-off of that old copper network infrastructure, but it has not placed an obligation on Openreach to communicate with the people who are losing their telephony. Does she agree that it is not too late in the day for Ofcom to put Openreach on the hook for communicating with people who are about to lose their copper network?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, I think for the second time this week. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. She made a critical point in her final remarks about the effectiveness of Ofcom and whether we are overdue a review. It is 26 years since Ofcom was set up, and the changes in modern communication that we have seen in that time have been profound. It is a very valid point. Before entering Parliament, I worked in mobile telecommunications for 13 years. During that time, I saw how Government policy and regulatory frameworks shape competition, investment and consumer choices <span id="247WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="247WH"></span>and outcomes. One lesson that I took from that experience is that spectrum policy matters enormously. Spectrum is not simply a technical issue for regulators. It is one of the most powerful tools available to support competition, investment and innovation in mobile. Back in 2000—I am that old—the UK’s 3G spectrum auction demonstrated that point very clearly. Competition sat at the heart of the then Labour Government’s policy. The result was a highly competitive mobile 3G market that encouraged substantial investment in infrastructure, rapid innovation and major benefits for consumers. Over time, and I am afraid to say particularly due to the decisions taken in the early 2010s by Conservative Ministers, that competitive landscape shifted. Spectrum holdings that were held for the use of mobile data became increasingly less equal, and the opportunities to strengthen genuine infrastructure competition were missed. As a result, some of the benefits that came from a competitive 3G market were lost. Much is said about competition in telecommunications, and rightly so. Consumers can choose from a wide range of broadband and mobile providers. That competition helps drive innovation, service quality and value for money. However, we should not confuse retail competition with infrastructure competition. True competition depends not only on the number of brands selling services, but on competition between the networks that underpin those services. Without effective infrastructure competition, consumers might appear to have plenty of choice, but what they do not have is plenty of coverage—certainly not in rural areas such as my constituency. Spectrum sits at the heart of that challenge. It is a finite national asset, on which every mobile call, message and wireless data connection depends, and the way it is allocated has a profound impact on investment coverage and long-term market structure. Ofcom, therefore, has a critical responsibility to ensure that spectrum policy promotes genuine competition, supports investment and delivers benefits to consumers in every part of the country, including rural and hard-to-reach communities. Spectrum policy should strengthen rather than simply reinforce the position of the operators that already hold significant advantages in low-frequency spectrum in particular, which is critical for delivering rural and indoor coverage. However, I do not believe that responsibility rests solely with Ofcom. Spectrum is one of the most valuable public assets this country possesses. Decisions about how it is used shape competition, investment, innovation and coverage for decades. Those decisions should be informed by a clear national strategy set by Government. We have long-term strategies for transport, energy and digital infrastructure. There is a strong case for a clear, long-term spectrum strategy that sets out how spectrum allocation will support economic growth, innovation, network resilience and genuine infrastructure competition. Infrastructure competition is not, on its own, enough. We must also look at the resilience of our mobile networks, because mobile connectivity is now an essential service. People rely on it to access banking, public services, transport information, employment and emergency assistance. Businesses rely on it to operate, communicate and serve their customers. When networks fail, the consequences are no longer merely inconvenient. Outages can disrupt livelihoods, affect public confidence and leave people unable to access services on which they depend. <span id="248WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="248WH"></span>That makes Ofcom’s work on network resilience critical. Mobile operators must be expected to maintain robust infrastructure, communicate clearly with customers when problems occur and learn lessons when failures happen. Resilience should not be treated as an aspiration; it should be a core obligation. However, currently, it is left simply to Ofcom guidance. Reliable mobile connectivity is now part of our critical national infrastructure. It underpins growth, services and everyday life, and the public rightly expect networks to be dependable. I ask the Minister: is guidance on something as critical as mobile resilience sufficient? Should Ofcom not instead require the mobile networks to have back-up power to their mobile masts? That does not have to be permanent back-up; it could be a fleet of electricity generators that can be taken to masts in the event of power outages. I do not believe guidance is sufficient. My second question is: do the Government believe that citizens and consumers, which Ofcom has a dual duty towards, would benefit from a clearer national spectrum strategy from Government working alongside Ofcom? Thirdly, does the current regulatory framework provide sufficient tools to promote infrastructure competition? Ultimately, consumers need more than a choice of provider; they need confidence that the networks on which they depend deliver the coverage they need, that they are resilient and reliable, and that Government, regulators and industries are working towards a clear, long-term plan to fully utilise one of the most important assets our country has.
<Question HRSContentId="{EE06A08E-5BFA-4AA8-9BB8-08E9CDEA8E88}">18. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BA27D50B-FD96-4589-A17F-D4489F268437}">What steps she is taking to promote active travel.</QuestionText> </Question>
To continue the theme of the Tour de France, after it leaves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), it will finish its first leg in Carlisle. We can all agree that cycling and e-bikes play an important role in active travel. However, many Labour Members have become very concerned about illegal e-bikes that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle, which are doing great damage to the reputation of cycling. Will the Minister meet me and other Labour Members to discuss a ban on the sale of illegal e-bikes, so that we can focus on the positives of cycling in this Tour de France year?
I add my congratulations to Harry Kane, but let me also say how proud we remain of the success of our Lionesses—not just on the field, but off the field—in inspiring young girls to play. However, I have become aware that a girls’ coach in <span id="446" class="column-number" data-column-number="446"></span>Carlisle is unable to access the UEFA A licence because her role as a coach in the girls’ emerging talent centre is excluded from the Football Association’s priority criteria, whereas a coach in the equivalent boys’ pathway is not. I have written to the FA, but its response states that it does not intend to change that. Could the Leader of the House advise me how we in this place can make the FA think again and ensure that opportunities available to female coaches in the women’s game are not confined to the large clubs and the top tier?
I regard this Budget through two lenses. First, as the Labour Member of Parliament for Carlisle, I am asking what the Budget means for the people, families and businesses that I represent. Secondly, as a member of the Treasury Committee, I am examining whether these measures will strengthen our economy over the long term. I judge the Budget against four tests. Does is it improve the lives of working people? Does it strengthen the British economy? Does it make the UK a more attractive destination for inward investment? Does it help the north? When assessing any Budget, economic stability must come first. Before entering Parliament—contrary to the view held by some Opposition Members—I worked for businesses that were backed by one of the UK’s largest inward investors. What investors look for is not political knockabout, the likes of which we have sadly heard from those Opposition Members this afternoon, but stability, credibility, infrastructure, skills and a credible long-term plan. On that test, the Budget passes. Despite global instability, Britain recorded the joint fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, while business investment has risen by 7.5% since the start of this Parliament. The Government continue to meet their fiscal rules, maintain a buffer against future shocks and put borrowing on a downward path. That matters because without stability there can be no sustained investment, no lasting growth and no durable improvements in living standards. My second test is whether the Budget strengthens Britain’s attractiveness as a place to invest. This Budget backs investment in innovation, skills, infrastructure and artificial intelligence while continuing to support businesses with lower regulatory burdens and greater certainty. Those are exactly the ingredients that international investors look for when deciding where to place their capital. My third test is whether the Budget improves the lives of working people. Ultimately, growth is not a statistic. It is about whether people feel more secure and have greater opportunity. That is why I welcome the extension of the fuel duty freeze and the 5p cut, which will help motorists and businesses across rural constituencies such as mine. I welcome the permanent increase in tax-free mileage rates, which will help care workers, community nurses and tradespeople who rely on their vehicles every single day. I welcome the expansion of parental pay, including to self-employed fathers and partners.<span id="385" class="column-number" data-column-number="385"></span> My final test is whether the Budget helps the north. Economic success cannot be measured solely by what happens in London. It must be measured by whether places like Carlisle share in that success. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to devolution and look forward to electing Cumbria’s first mayor next year. I trust that they will be a Labour mayor. We have in Carlisle ambitious businesses, skilled workers, a strategic location and enormous potential. We have a high street already on the up—one that will be further strengthened by the cuts to business rates. We have great local independent breweries. I welcome not only the £10 million boost in small producer relief but the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England that will ensure that the local breweries in my constituency are able to get their local product into our local pubs. The Government’s approach to devolution, alongside good growth funds and greater local control, offers an opportunity for communities such as mine to play a greater role in the country’s success. This is a Budget that provides support for households today while laying the foundations for long-term growth. It recognises that when places like Carlisle succeed, the north succeeds—and when the north succeeds, Britain succeeds.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing today’s important debate and giving us all the opportunity to speak in support of recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. When I think of cultural heritage, I think of notable historic buildings like Carlisle castle or Carlisle cathedral, or structures like the Bewcastle cross and Hadrian’s wall, but heritage is also about the skills and traditions we pass on between generations. Few capture that better than cask ale. A great pint depends on the craftmanship of the brewer who makes the beer, the cellarperson who conditions it and the publican who serves it. These skills require knowledge, experience and care; they are worth celebrating and preserving. Carlisle has a distinct place in brewing history. In 1916, during the first world war, the Government brought the city’s pubs and breweries under state control with the Carlisle state management scheme. Members might be interested to know that that remained in place between 1916 and 1973, and the last pub that the state built and opened was in 1973. I am not advocating for the nationalisation of our brewing sector; however, that remarkable experiment shaped pub design and licensing policy and left a lasting mark on my city’s identity. That brewing tradition continues today. Carlisle is fortunate to have four independent breweries: the Carlisle Brewing Company, West Walls Brewing Co., the Great Corby Brewhouse and the Old Vicarage Brewery. Those small breweries support jobs, attract visitors and help to sustain our local culture. I am very much looking forward to sampling a little of their product at the Carlisle beer and cider festival later this week. West Walls Brewing is a success story, having opened its taproom just two years ago. It is a particularly good example of how independent brewing can attract new customers and create a vibrant hub of community life in our city centre. Carlisle’s cask ale has even found its way into popular fiction. Readers of M. W. Craven’s “Washington Poe” novels will know of the detective’s fondness for the Carlisle Brewing Company’s Spun Gold ale and his appreciation of a properly kept beer, usually poured from The Kings Head in Carlisle city centre. Behind that fictional example is a serious point: getting cask ale right is a craft, and it depends on skills we cannot take for granted. However, getting pints of independently brewed craft ale into the hands of consumers is a challenge due to the practices of the large brewing companies. I therefore invite the Minister to set out in her remarks where the Government’s thinking is on the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England. What discussions have been had with SIBA about improving market access for smaller breweries? As I am sure a number of Members know, SIBA has looked at the impact of the Scottish guest beer agreement and what it has done for tied pubs, and 86% of the tenants who have an agreement in place have said it improved their trade. I feel it acutely because I represent a borders constituency, and I can literally walk a matter <span id="62WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="62WH"></span>of metres to a pub that can enjoy a guest beer agreement. I urge the Government to get on with introducing a guest beer agreement in England. Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage would celebrate much more than a drink; it would recognise the people, craftmanship and community traditions behind it. At a time when pubs face many pressures and independent breweries are working hard to remain competitive, that recognition would send an important message: traditions matter and good beer matters. From Carlisle’s unique brewing history to the businesses keeping it alive today, our great border city—my great border city—shows why cask ale deserves to be celebrated and passed on to future generations.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 5,200. 45,979 votes cast from an electorate of 77,863. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Julie Minns | Labour | 18,129 | 39.4% |
| John Stevenson | Conservative | 12,929 | 28.1% |
| Stephen Ward | Reform UK | 9,295 | 20.2% |
| Brian Wernham | Liberal Democrat | 2,982 | 6.5% |
| Gavin Hawkton | Green Party | 1,922 | 4.2% |
| Sean Reed | Independent | 303 | 0.7% |
| Rachel Hayton | Social Democratic Party | 244 | 0.5% |
| Thomas Lynestrider | Independent | 175 | 0.4% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| CarlisleElected 1 time | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Treasury Committee | – present |
| Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill | – |
| Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill | – present |
| Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] | – |
| Energy Security and Net Zero Committee | – |
| Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) | – |
| Statutory Instruments (Select Committee) | – |
Website
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .