Well, as Petition Debates happen in Westminster Hall there were no party divisions or counts. It was a lot quicker to look up Hansard to find out what was said, and who said it than follow the YouTube link. YT videos irritate me as an insult to people's intelligence which take up too much reading time, and their editing isn't impartial.
This is the list of MPs who spoke, which comes out as 8 Labour - 16 Conservative - 11 (Liberal Democrat) - 1 DUP - 1 PC - 1 Ind (ex Reform).
Much of it was a rehash of old gripes. As the odds were 4 to 1 against, the BASC press release just confirms that the deck was stacked in favour of the opposition which is no surprise. The Minister's closing statement here gave nothing away about the shape of the consultation, so what exactly was the point of it all? Spare us the platitudes about sitting on one's ass as that is not an argument.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Conclusion
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on an excellent introduction to what has been an excellent debate. It has been measured and thoughtful, and I thank Members from across the House for an informative and useful debate. I hope that it does justice to the number of people who signed the petition and are looking to this place and rightfully asking us questions.
We have heard a lot of points made in different ways, but which are actually quite similar, and I want to reflect on those. The starting point is that nobody in this House is minded to get in the way of safety. As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, nobody in this place wants to do anything that will harm more people or that will do anything to increase the number of people who are killed through the use of firearms. That is clear—and has been very clear from everybody who has spoken.
Another point that has been very clearly made is that when looking at the potential changes that we are consulting on, we need to balance quite a lot of different aspects. First, there is the basic principle of freedoms versus responsibilities. There is also the bureaucratic burden of changing the licensing system versus the economic necessity and benefit that the use of shotguns brings—Members have talked about that in many different ways throughout this debate. We have heard powerful facts from BASC, the Countryside Alliance and others on the economic benefit of shooting. I think that the wider economic benefit is £9.3 billion—although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said £3.9 billion—and there are tens of thousands of jobs as well. The need to strike the right balance has been a powerful message, which I have very much heard.
Finally on the principles on which we can all agree, everybody would say that we need to think about this in terms of responsibilities and a common-sense approach instead of ideology. We need to get this right, and I have heard that loud and clear. Some Members talked about how their constituents perceive a lack of understanding of rural communities from the Government. As Members would expect me to, I reject that. Someone could think that I, as an MP from Croydon, do not know much about shooting, and they would not be wrong. I have been clay pigeon shooting, but that is the extent of my knowledge. There are, however, people in my constituency who have signed the petition, and the benefit of my position is that I have access to a huge array of experts, colleagues from across the House, organisations and others who can educate and inform me. It is my business to be educated and informed on these issues.
In short, I do not think that we should look at one thing at the expense of another at the same time. We are capable of tackling several things in several different ways, but I will come to that later.
A basic principle that we can all agree on is the need to avoid unintended consequences, in whatever we may or may not do. I have heard that loud and clear. I have had multiple conversations with MPs, colleagues and organisations on that front already. I should acknowledge Christopher Graffius, who has very sadly died after a long illness. I met him both in opposition and in government recently, and he was still working very hard. He made a tremendous contribution not only in his role in BASC, but in supporting the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. He was very forthright in his views, as probably all hon. Members in the Chamber might have experienced, but he always argued clearly and strongly in the interests of the community that he represented. My condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.
There is one issue on which I diverge from others in how I look at this issue. Some Members said that they could not see the problem that we are trying to fix. Christopher used to give statistics to me about more people drowning in a bath than dying from a licensed shotgun. I understand that argument, up to a point, but there is something powerful about the gravity of granting a licence. As the state, we hold the power to allow somebody to hold a weapon. That is different from spending money to avoid accidents. We should understand the burden on the state of granting a licence.
Although cases where people have been killed are small in number, they are uniquely horrific for their impact on the immediate family and community, and on the country. I think all of us in the Chamber are old enough to remember Dunblane; we are headed for its 30th anniversary. It was an enormously difficult time not just for that community, but for the whole country. There is something slightly different about the giving of a licence and how we think about that, which we need to consider. I approach that as something that gives me a sense of responsibility.
Let me say that we are looking at doing things in due course. I know that the “in due course” answer is not always satisfactory for the Opposition, but that is the answer. We are not minded to do one thing or another; we are conducting the consultation and listening to the evidence and the debate. There are a range of different things we could do: from doing nothing to completely merging sections 1 and 2, and a whole raft of interventions in between.
Some Members asked me to confirm that we would take into account the voices that we have heard expressed today, which included those in the rural community and the urban community—a point was made about the number of licences granted in London—and of course we will. I understand the points about unintended consequences and needing a balanced system. The point of the consultation is to try to understand those issues.
Members also said, “Don’t do this; do that.” I sort of understand that, but surely we can do more than one thing at a time. Lots of people pointed to something that we are already beginning to think about: calls for centralised licensing. Members will know that we published the White Paper on police reform recently and we are setting up a national police service. That is an opportunity to look at whether we should have a national licensing system. I think there would need to be some local element at all times, because visits to the home, for example, are made by local police and we would need to retain that, but there is an interesting conversation to be had as we go through the reform process and the opportunity of setting up a national police service: “Actually, is now the time to have a centralised licensing system?” That is something that I am happy to look at and have already had conversations about.
Points were made about the licensing system, including about how slow it can be and how different it is in the 43 forces. Again, the police reform programme is looking to reduce the number of forces, and if we had a national police service, that could help us with standardising training. The College of Policing has introduced a new system of training, and I am going to go and have some of that training next week so that I can understand what it is and how good it is. As the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said, there is new training in place.
There is huge inconsistency, and we need to make improvements across the country to the speed with which licences are granted. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services is conducting a thematic review at the moment. The inspector highlighted that, and the thematic review will give us more data on that front.
Why we are consulting 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.
My hon. Friend is right that there are big inconsistencies and that some forces are doing very well. 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.
The onward sale of guns—the illegal market in guns—is a massive issue that we need to tackle, and indeed we are.
As many people have said, we are fortunate in this country that we have a very strict regime and do not have a very significant gun issue. The number of murders involving the use of illegal guns is coming down, but of course there is always more that we can do in this space. We work with the National Crime Agency, Border Force and police forces to look at these issues, and, again, the setting up of a national police service that can have more specialism in some of these areas will help us to do that.
We have not been idle since we came into government. There are always changes that we can make, and we have made a number of significant ones, including reissuing, in August 2025, the statutory guidance to chief officers of police on firearms licensing. That ensures that the police carry out robust and consistent checks on the suitability of those who hold or apply for a shotgun or firearms licence. I will not go into the other things we have done, but we have made other changes and are always open to ideas.
I should briefly say that medical markers are really important and are already working. We will keep under review whether to mandate, but we already have 98,000 active digital markers on patient GP records. In 2024-25, there were over 1,100 cases in which the GP notified the police of a medical concern. That is a good thing, but it is worrying that people who have mental health issues, Toggle showing location ofColumn 46WHor whatever it might be, and obviously need support are going to the GP and the GP has raised a marker. It shows how important the system is, but also how careful we need to be when licensing.
To conclude, I hear, I understand and I will continue to learn—I learned about geese today, which I did not know much about, and crofting. I cannot say I am an expert, but I absolutely understand the economic benefit and the need for the use of guns in this country. I want to make sure we have the best regime possible, and that is why we are conducting the consultation. I am very open to hearing more views and to learning more from hon. Members. We will publish the consultation in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.
7.27pm Sitting adjourned.
