(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue.
In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response.
That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet?
In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record.
Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward for debate. I, like others, always try to be helpful in my contributions. At a meeting with key stakeholders, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation in Northern Ireland met the Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They routinely acknowledge that the Northern Ireland firearms licensing system, which includes medical checks, is one of the most robust systems—if not the most—in the world. It is clear there is no need for change there. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to liaise with shooting organisations such as the BASC and Countryside Alliance to get insight from their expertise? Could the Minister potentially look at the system in Northern Ireland as the catalyst that the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve?
Helen Maguire
It is interesting to hear that there is another system in Northern Ireland, and indeed, I urge the Minister to look at that and see whether it could be applicable here.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I should perhaps clarify for the House that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the critical reasons that medical markers are not yet compulsory—I entirely agree that they ought to be—is that some doctors do not want to do it because they think it will put them in a decision-making position on whether a person should have a shotgun or firearms certificate? In fact, that is not the case; the decision maker is the relevant constabulary, and, in law, the chief of that constabulary is ultimately responsible for the decision.
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. This is about safeguarding the public. There are many other examples of doctors having similar abilities to use this information.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The hon. Member has prompted the second point that I want to make. Doctors and other medics are perfectly happy to do medical checks on people in relation to driving licences. That is an issue of public safety. Why is there inconsistency in doing it for firearms?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree, and I will be coming on to that further in my speech. Let me be clear that this debate is in no way about firearm ownership—the Government are consulting on that separately, and that is its own debate. Today’s discussion is about how we can ensure that medical professionals have the information required to best support the individuals they serve.
Emma and her daughter Lettie Pattison, who lived in my constituency, were shot and killed by Emma’s husband almost three years ago, before he turned the gun on himself. Before his latest shotgun licence renewal, George Pattison had used an online doctor to receive a “significant amount” of propranolol between 2019 and 2021. However, despite his change in mental health, the online doctor was unaware of his firearms licence, and the medication was not disclosed to his GP, which meant that neither professional was able to intervene. If they had, maybe Emma would still be working at Epsom college and Lettie might have celebrated her 10th birthday this year.
Robert Needham killed his partner Kelly Fitzgibbons, and their children Ava, age four, and Lexi, age two, in West Sussex in 2020. In Needham’s case, as a result of changes to gun licence guidelines, a flag was initially inputted and then removed. A statement from Kelly’s family following the inquest into their deaths described the monitoring and sharing of information between police and medical professionals about Needham’s shotgun licence as a “shambles.”
Having corresponded with medical organisations, I recognise that balancing the need for patient-doctor confidentiality is paramount. In the first instance, the GP should always ask for the individual’s consent before contacting another authority, such as the police, about how the issues they are facing may impact their ability to safely possess a gun. However, doctors can break confidentiality when it is in the public interest. According to the British Medical Association, public interest is likely to be justified where it is essential to protect other people from risks of serious harm or death.
GPs also must already abide by several safeguarding protocols and laws. The Care Act 2014 sets out six key principles of safeguarding, including prevention, noting that it is sometimes possible to act before harm has come to an individual. With those existing guidelines, mandatory markers are not an attempt to reinvent the wheel; they are simply a way of flagging vital information that is key to the patients and public safety. The Royal College of General Practitioners considers it valuable to have those digital markers in place, and notes that software systems should develop, implement and secure the functionality of the markers in patient records. The college recommends that the Government work with the providers of GP systems to resolve this issue.
The BMA also supports medical markers. They told me that doctors have a professional responsibility to share information that might impact on the safety of someone holding firearms in the community, and we need effective systems to do so. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office welcomes the digital medical marker and recognises the work of bereaved families who have lobbied tirelessly to ensure that action is taken to prevent future harm and further loss of life. The British Association for Shooting Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, who have a combined membership of over 200,000 people, both support the introduction of mandatory medical markers.
June 2010, March 2020, August 2021, February 2023—these dates are etched in the memories of families torn apart by gun violence: each one a failure of the system; each one a life that could have been saved. The Government have a choice: they can listen to the families of victims, to medical professionals, gun owners and the organisations working to end violence, or they can continue to leave the door open to tragedy. The Liberal Democrats believe that mandatory medical markers are a proportionate evidence-based safeguard. They allow concerns to be flagged early if someone’s health changes, rather than waiting years until a licence renewal, and can save lives. So I ask the Minister today: will he finally release the data on how many GPs are using the markers and will he commit today to making them mandatory?
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I have campaigned for medical markers for at least 20 years, long before the technology that now exists to do them digitally, which of course makes the whole thing far easier than having to put them on manually. In those early days, a few put them on manually, but now, with digital technology, there is no reason why the Government could not have an agreement with the BMA that all GPs and some other health professionals should put them on digitally. To add to what the hon. Member said in her excellent speech, I am chair of the all-party group on shooting and conservation. To make it absolutely clear where I am coming from, I have been a shotgun and firearms certificate holder for over 50 years.
I have been campaigning with the BASC on the issue of medical markers for many years, and have written articles and delivered speeches on the subject, so it is not a new one for me. I fully support a strict licensing system that works effectively for everyone—the police, firearms and shotgun certificate holders and, most importantly, the wider public, our constituency—because it is in no one’s interest that we should have any of the tragic incidents that the hon. Lady so powerfully alluded to. If we had a proper firearms certificate system with medical markers, then clearly, as she demonstrated, some of the tragedies could possibly have been avoided, so I wholly support her in that.
The terrible incident at Epsom college highlights exactly why we need a robust system of medical markers. I will explain a little more how it works. The current two-stage system makes it possible without adding any financial burdens to the GP. When a patient comes in for a consultation with the GP, the medical marker automatically flags up on his or her screen that Mr X or Ms X has a firearms or shotgun certificate, and the GP considers what they have come to see them about. If it is a medical condition such as a propensity to wanting to commit suicide or manic depression, or if domestic violence is involved, that would automatically flag up in the GP’s mind whether the person was a suitable person at that time to be holding either a firearms or shotgun certificate.
As the hon. Lady said, having had it flagged up in the GP’s mind, he or she would have a conversation with that person: “I see you are a shotgun certificate holder. You tell me you are feeling terrible and that you sometimes have feelings of wanting to commit suicide. We’re going to do our best to provide treatment for you, and it may be that in future you could return to a normal position where you could hold a shotgun, but at this particular time, do you think you are a fit person to be holding that shotgun certificate?”
One of two things then happens. If the patient is a belligerent sort of person, he or she would say, “Of course I’m a fit person.” The GP would then be in the position of having to say, “Well, I’m very sorry, but I don’t consider that you are, and I’m going to have to report your medical condition to the police.”
On the other side of the coin, there could be a more sensible conversation with a more rational person, who would say, “Doctor, I hear what you say, and I think it is a concern. I will now take steps either to transfer the guns that I hold in my gun cabinet to a person who has a certificate, to a firearms dealer or to the police, until such time as you and the local constabulary think it is fit for me to repossess those weapons.” That is how it ought to work; that would have prevented a lot of these tragedies.
I think the Government have a role here. As the hon. Lady made clear, the lacuna in the system is that not all GPs currently operate a medical marker. She was quite right to ask what percentage of GPs operate a medical marker, and it would be really interesting to hear the answer from the Minister. If he and the Department of Health and Social Care do not know, they should send out an inquiry to all GPs to find out, and then he could begin to have a negotiation with the General Medical Council and the BMA about whether doctors should operate this service when the Government next sign a contract with them.
There are two principal reasons why doctors do not operate a medical marker—something that is actually very easy to do and involves very little work. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Lady, the first is that there is a widely held concern among the people who will not do so that they will be regarded as the decision maker. They do not want to be the decision maker because, at the margin, it will be quite difficult to decide whether a person should possess a shotgun or other firearm. But that is not the case, as I made clear in my intervention; the chief constable of the constabulary that granted the certificate is the final decision maker. Of course, the normal appeal rights apply to the chief constable. If he has decided that somebody’s firearms licence should not be granted or should be revoked, the affected person has the right to appeal against that decision. It is quite clear that the GP is not the decision maker, and I therefore cannot see any reason why they would not want to operate the medical marker.
The second reason that GPs do not want to operate the medical marker is that they are very busy people—they are overworked—and it is another thing that they have to do. But if they are going to do it for driving licences, heavy goods vehicle licences and a number of other categories, I cannot see why they would not do it in the public interest for firearms.
My sister was a GP and the senior partner of a GP practice. One of her partners was a conscientious objector to people having guns, and she ended up having to do all his casework to do with firearms. Even if a GP is a conscientious objector, they still ought to be interested in public safety as an overall priority of their work, so it would be reasonable to require them to just look at a person’s medical notes and take account of whether their medical condition made them a suitable person to hold a firearm.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those really important points. I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which brings together 15 leading shooting sports organisations, and an enthusiastic shooter, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with the points that he is making.
My hon. Friend made a point about the wider licensing regime. This issue is partly about the licensing regime for firearms, but there is an interesting carry-over. I also have a pilot’s licence, and the pilot’s licensing regime—particularly the commercial pilot’s licensing regime—takes into account medical fitness to fly, which includes mental health. There are examples out there of how this can be done if we get the licensing regime right and get the buy-in of GPs.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming on to the wider firearms licensing regime. BASC thinks that there are about half a million shotgun certificate holders and about 150,000 firearms certificate holders, so this is a large and costly job for the 43 forces to undertake.
There have recently been increases of 250% in the fees for firearms and shotgun licence renewals and grants, so I understand—and I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—that the system is largely self-financing at the moment. I make one plea to the Minister. That big 250% increase came as a great shock, particularly to some firearm and shotgun holders of modest means. When the PAC had our hearing on recovering fees and charges, we found that it is much better to gradually update them each year rather than leave them with no update, as has happened for 12 years, which is why that very large increase was needed. An update every year would be appreciated.
It is a large task to license 650,000-odd firearms and shotguns. There is an opportunity here, with the announcement of the White Paper this week on reforming our police forces. One would need to think carefully about this, but there is a case for considering more centralisation of shotgun and firearms certificates. The centralisation of the police would be an opportunity to consider that. It would relieve the local police, who often struggle—
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I will just make this point first. Local police often struggle to have well-trained people in their firearms department. It is quite an onerous task; they have to know a lot about guns to work out whether a gun is the one on the certificate or not, and there are a number of other questions. Centralising the processing part of firearms and shotgun licences could make a lot of sense.
There would still need to be a local inspection regime. The local firearms officer came round recently, because I have just renewed my certificates. She talked to me at some length, to make sure that I was a sane person with no obvious mental problems, but equally she looked at the guns and she jolly well thoroughly checked that the guns on my certificate were the guns in my cabinet. She looked at the cabinet and at the amount of ammunition I had, and she questioned me about how much I had used and where I had used it. This was under the firearms regime, which is a different subject, but the Government are consulting on aligning the shotguns regime with the firearms regime. There are a considerable number of problems with that, and it needs to be very carefully considered.
I happily give way to my fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee.
Rachel Gilmour
Thank you, darling Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
As vice-chair of the Country Land and Business Association’s rural business and rural powerhouse APPG, I fully support the idea of a centralised licensing system. It is interesting that the chair of the APPG is a Liberal Democrat MP like me, so I am pretty confident that it is a sensible and practical idea and that it would prevent the awful sort of deaths that we had in Plymouth a few years ago. It is a very good idea, and the Chair of the PAC obviously agrees with me; I thank him for raising it.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am very grateful for the support from my fellow Committee member. She is dead right: it is a sensible idea that the Minister and the Government should seriously consider.
This complex process, with a very large number of shotgun and firearms certificates, could be made considerably more efficient—the best forces do this already—by proper IT. The problem is that the best forces have the IT and do it really efficiently, but the worst are really not geared up properly with that IT. That is why, in the discussion about fee increases, we wanted to make sure that they were based on the best performance and not the worst.
In our recent PAC hearing on police productivity, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) knows—our report is out shortly—we found that a lot of forces, particularly the smaller forces, could not afford to upgrade their IT properly. That is a really serious issue, because as our Committee has found, if police forces do not have properly upgraded IT, that not only makes processes such as shotgun certificate licensing more expensive, because it is more inefficient and they have to do it manually, but makes the police force more liable to cyber-attacks. It cannot operate the proper AI learning systems and so on if there are not the proper systems to operate them on.
All in all, this is a really sensible proposal. We know that the number of homicides by licensed shotguns and firearms is very low in this country. Nevertheless, every death and every wounded person is one too many and is a tragedy for that person and their family. It is incumbent on the Government to take this proposal seriously. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell again on bringing it before the House.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. We have all watched with great sadness the recent shootings in the United States—scenes that should have shaken any civilised society. Thankfully, Britain is not a trigger-happy country, nor do we aspire to be.
Let me be absolutely clear: this is not about restricting lawful firearm ownership. As a liberal, I am not in the business of banning things for the sake of it. As a rural MP, and having spent almost all my life in the west country, I am a creature of the countryside. I know that guns are part of rural life, but they are tools, not toys.
Balancing responsible gun ownership with public safety is a delicate dance. Gun owners already undergo rigorous checks and we should avoid excessive bureaucracy, but the system is inconsistent and leaves gaps. Mandatory medical markers would close those gaps. Shooting organisations themselves recognise that: the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, among others, supports the use of medical markers because it reinforces what they know from experience, which is that licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly responsible and pose no risk to the public. That is precisely why their call for compulsory markers reflects a desire for a system that is robust, consistent and trusted by all.
We must also consider the wider context. Mental health is a growing concern in rural communities such as mine. Farmers are among the most resilient people in the country, but resilience does not make anyone immune to pressure. Rural life can be hard and isolating; it involves long hours and financial uncertainty. That is not to pathologise farmers—quite the opposite—but acknowledging the pressures they face is important.
The introduction of mandatory medical markers would be quite simply a win-win for gun owners, the public and the medical professionals who play such a vital role in the licensing process. It would strengthen trust, enhance safety and reinforce the responsible culture that already exists in our shooting communities.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I missed a really important point in my speech: at the moment, there is no check between the renewing or granting of a shotgun or firearms licence and the re-grant five years later. Does the hon. Member agree that introducing medical markers would, in a sense, introduce a check between grant and renewal if somebody turned up to their GP with one of the health conditions that would be prejudicial to holding a gun?
Rachel Gilmour
I thank the hon. Member for his intelligent and incisive comment.
Mandatory medical markers help to support the rural community. They ensure that if someone is struggling, the licensing process is equipped to respond swiftly and sensitively. The public understand that. Some 70% of firearms licence holders support mandatory markers. Among the wider public, support shoots—pardon the pun—to 86%. Crucially, these markers are not a barrier to gun ownership. They do not make the process more difficult; they simply make it safer. I say to the Minister that it is common sense.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate, on her hard work on the topic and on her very moving speech.
This debate is about lives that should not have been lost. It is about a system that failed, when it could have made the difference between safety and tragedy. When warning signs exist but are not seen, when safeguards are optional rather than embedded and when responsibility is fragmented across an overstretched system, the consequences can be fatal, as we have heard. I support my hon. Friend’s call for change. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that firearms licensing in this country protects public safety while remaining fair, workable and, most importantly, proportionate for those who hold licences responsibly and lawfully.
I want to begin by acknowledging the unimaginable loss suffered by the family and friends of Emma and Lettie Pattison. It should not take such a tragedy for us to act, but we owe it to them and to the public to learn lessons and make changes that will prevent further harm. The inquest into their deaths found that George Pattison was legally permitted to hold a shotgun licence despite having concealed relevant medical information. He had obtained significant quantities of medication for anxiety through online services entirely outside his GP’s knowledge, and when he renewed his licence there was no effective mechanism to identify that risk. The senior coroner issued a clear warning that unless gun ownership laws are tightened, the risk of future deaths will remain. That warning must be taken seriously.
Mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders are a proportionate and evidence-based safeguard. They are not about punishing responsible gun owners; they are about ensuring that when someone’s health changes in a way that may affect their suitability to possess a firearm, that risk is identified early, rather than years later at the licence renewal or not at all. Effectively, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) outlined, it is an ongoing safety check against changes in an individual’s circumstances.
The legal framework already recognises the importance of medical fitness. Under the Firearms Act 1968, police must be satisfied that a person can possess a firearm
“without danger to public safety or to the peace.”
Medical information is already part of that assessment; the question before us is whether the system is robust enough.
In 2022, an important step forward was taken when GPs in England were given access to interactive medical markers that can be placed on medical records for firearms certificate holders. Making those markers mandatory would help to better identify individuals whose medical conditions may temporarily or permanently impair their ability to handle a firearm safely. Current guidance includes
“post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts or self-harm or harm to others, depression or anxiety, dementia, mania, bipolar disorders or a psychotic illness”
and neurological conditions such as alcohol or drug abuse. When assessed, that marker alerts a GP that a patient holds a firearms licence and allows concerns to be flagged to the police where appropriate.
The system works. It respects professional boundaries. GPs do not decide who holds a licence; that decision rightly remains with law enforcement. It imposes no financial burden on surgeries. It enables safeguards throughout the life of a licence, not just at the point of renewal. But there are flaws in the system: its use is voluntary, it may not account for online workarounds, which people are adept at using, and there is no obligation on GPs to apply the marker. That is because under the previous Government, the Home Office declined to make it mandatory. As has been outlined, we do not even know how many practices actually use it.
The evidence strongly supports change. The police support mandatory markers. The Countryside Alliance supports mandatory markers. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation supports them, and has suggested that they be incorporated into GP contracts. The British Medical Association now recommends their use. Perhaps most compellingly of all, 70% of firearms certificate holders support the change, according to a survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and among the wider public that support is at 86%. It is a sensible proposal enjoying widespread support among the public and the sector.
In 2016, Christopher Foster killed his wife and daughter before taking his own life. He had discussed depression and suicidal thoughts with his GP, but there was no way for the GP to know that he owned a firearm. In Plymouth in 2021, six people were killed with a licensed firearm. The inquest found that a marker had not been placed, despite the police requesting one. Thankfully, in the UK, murders, suicides and deliberate injuries by licensed firearm owners remain mercifully low. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of licensed gun owners in this country are responsible gun owners, but there is no ignoring the fact that lives could have been saved in those cases if medical markers had been mandatory.
Medical markers are about early intervention. They protect the licence holder as much as anyone else. They ensure that when someone is struggling with their mental or physical health, support and safeguarding go hand in hand. Having safeguards in place is important because of the wider issues at play. The process for approving or refusing a firearms licence is currently slow, inconsistent, expensive and, in large parts of the country, under huge strain. The processing time varies wildly depending on where a person lives, fees differ, and huge backlogs exist in some places.
Firearms licensing is a specialist function delivered by local police forces, yet rural police forces such as mine in Dorset, which are responsible for areas with high levels of gun ownership, are under the greatest financial pressure, struggling with overstretched resources. Firearms in farming communities are not recreational; for most farmers, they are an essential tool of their trade. When renewals are delayed, livelihoods are affected.
There are further challenges. The Home Office is consulting on merging section 1 and section 2 licensing. This may be well intentioned, but it risks adding complexity, cost and delay to an already fragile system unless carefully handled. Licensing is already expensive, and delays already undermine confidence. That is why I believe we must look seriously at proposals for a dedicated firearms licensing agency. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper acknowledges that firearms are a specialist area and that concentrating such functions in centres of excellence could improve effectiveness, consistency and value for money.
A centralised body could standardise fees, reduce waiting times, ensure the consistent application of medical markers and take the pressure off local police forces, freeing them to focus on their job—frontline policing. A specialist agency would be better equipped to process licences efficiently, apply safeguards properly and respond to risks swiftly. It would also ensure that reforms such as mandatory medical markers were implemented consistently and effectively, rather than, as at the moment, unevenly across the country.
The Liberal Democrats are proud champions of rural communities. We support responsible gun ownership. We are also clear that safeguarding must go hand in hand with support. We will always stand up for people experiencing mental ill health or addiction, but that is precisely why early identification and intervention matter. Mandatory medical markers are about not punishment but protection.
At a time when mental health services are under immense strain and online medical services can be used to bypass safeguards, it is more important than ever that our licensing system is joined up, informed and proactive. Will the Minister release the data that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has requested? Will he give consideration to centralised licensing systems and to making medical markers mandatory? Will he ensure that public safety measures are not undermined by a system that is slow, inconsistent and overstretched?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I usually respond to matters related to the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is a pleasure to be here to debate a more rural point. I represent Farnham and Bordon, which is a semi-rural seat. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I must declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and a member of the Conservative Rural Forum.
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her expositions of very many tragic cases, especially her powerful remarks about the appalling case of Emma and Lettie Pattison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his very practical approach to this debate; I think the Government should take on board the number of issues he raised.
Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) discussed the synergies between gun licences and other licensing regimes—in his case, for pilots. I look forward to him taking me on a trip at some point. I also thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for her, as ever, interesting contributions, drawing on her rural experience.
Whenever we decide to create new rules that restrict the behaviour of the many in response to the actions of the few, we must be extremely careful. Where genuine loopholes exist because of data silos, or because of how long-standing rules interact with novel cases, it is right that they are closed. As has been mentioned, while the firearms marker is not mandatory, a digital version has been rolled out to all general practices in England, with implementation completed in May 2023.
The key point that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned was that the Government must continue to monitor the efficacy of the current system to ensure that only those who are suitable are able to hold a firearms licence and, more especially, to publish the data surrounding that. As has been mentioned, many organisations are supportive of mandatory markers, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but we must have the data to take an evidence-led approach.
Protecting the integrity of the firearms licensing system is essential for public safety, but any measures must remain proportionate and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on medical professionals or responsible licence holders. As we have seen so often in recent years, the net result of successive, well-intentioned changes to the law can be a system that makes life unduly difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding people, while failing to stop the criminal minority.
Unfortunately, under this Government, we have seen a renewed assault on civilian firearms ownership, which is set to directly punish those in rural communities who rely on firearms as tools of the trade. For farmers, land managers and pest controllers, firearms are part and parcel of everyday life, and access to those tools is vital. Without them, it would be impossible to protect livestock and manage the local population of certain animals, as farming communities have done for centuries.
None the less, without any particular justification, and without ever proving that it would actually prevent criminals from getting hold of firearms, the Government have announced that they plan to regulate section 2 firearms, such as shotguns, under the more stringent regime that previously applied only to section 1 firearms. We have heard vague gestures in the direction of public safety, but no clear case has been made for the substantive measures proposed, and we certainly have had no indication from the Government that they have considered the particular needs of rural communities.
If shotguns are to be regulated like long-range rifles, how do the Government expect farmers and pest controllers to continue their work? Given that, as we have heard, many police firearms licensing departments are overwhelmed by the volume of applications, has there been any consideration of the delays that extra work for these departments would create?
One of my constituents recently submitted a renewal application within the timeframe recommended by the police, allowing more than six months for processing. The only response received was, by return of post, an extension of the existing licence, as the department acknowledged that it would be unable to issue a new licence within the six-month period. The routine use of licence extensions is concerning because it allows firearms to remain in circulation without a timely, full reassessment of suitability. Meanwhile, some of the Government’s proposals will not help with public safety, but will put additional burdens on the police force or make them more likely.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Throughout this debate, we have talked about proportionality. Everybody who has spoken has agreed that compulsory medical markers would be totally proportionate to try to make the public safer. However, the proposal to move shotguns from section 2 to section 1 is totally disproportionate. The current law was framed as it is because a shotgun is lethal at only a relatively short range, whereas a firearm, even a .22 if shot straight, is lethal at up to a mile with high-velocity bullets. They are two totally different tools of the trade and are used for different things.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems to me that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Government, without them understanding the logistics or the mechanics of the difference between the long-range rifles and shotguns used by our rural communities—[Interruption.] And, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, without actually seeing the evidence for it. Whether we are talking about medical markers or the changes to the shotgun licensing regime, the key thing is that it must be done on the basis of evidence.
I therefore ask the Minister: has there been any consideration of the disruption that these delays will cause to those in rural communities who rely on firearms for work? Have these questions been asked at all within the Home Office or, as in so many other cases, have the Government simply failed to consider the needs of rural communities? It is clearly true that, wherever possible, our firearms licensing rules should prevent weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to use them only to do harm to others, but any new changes to the law must account for the fact that life in the countryside is very different from life in our largest cities. We must afford some space for discretion and for recognising the particular needs of certain communities.
We must also always be sure that new rules would actually make life more difficult for wrongdoers, instead of allowing good intentions to lead us into making life more difficult for the law-abiding majority. Far too often it is the law-abiding who are punished by rules that are created in this place, even when those rules were designed with the most sincere intention of targeting the criminal few.
Can the Minister provide clarity on when we can expect the consultation on the proposed changes to shotgun licensing? Can he assure us today that the final verdict of the consultation will take full account of those across rural Britain, whose livelihoods will be rendered impossible by these proposals? Can he further assure us that, before considering any new regulations, the Government will first consider a renewed focus on enforcing the law as it already stands?
I think there has been clear agreement in this debate on the need for a licensing system that protects the public, does not overburden the police or the NHS, stops and punishes wrongdoers, and recognises the special need that people in rural communities have for responsible gun ownership. Therefore, I urge the Minister to approach this issue with an evidence-based, proportionate and fair attitude, protecting the public and protecting our rural way of life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate, and I thank all the other Members who are here today for their well-argued, compelling, considered and sensible points. I will address those points as best I can in my response, then I will move on to address the shotgun issue near the end.
As we know, firearms licensing controls are crucial to minimise the risk of harm and to keep the public safe. Medical checks and the use of firearms markers are an important part of those controls. Although I understand why there are calls for such markers to be mandatory, the Government do not consider that to be necessary at this point, and I come on to the reasons why. It should be recognised that the decisions in all firearms application cases are taken by the relevant police force. Medical information provided by GPs is very important, but it is just one part of the information that is considered by the police.
Before I address the specific points that have been raised during the debate, I reassure Members and their constituents that work continues to make the firearms licensing system as robust as it can be. Although public safety is and will always be the priority, it is also right to acknowledge that the large majority of firearms licence holders—there are some in the Public Gallery today—do not cause any concern. The challenge is to have an effective system in place to identify individuals who might cause harm.
Of course, the tragedy at Epsom college in February 2023 shocked us all. In discussing these issues today, I know that we all have the victims of that crime—Emma Pattison and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie—and the victims of other such crimes well and truly at the forefront of our minds. The perpetrator at Epsom college was Emma’s husband; he was a licensed shotgun owner, who then killed himself. He had suffered from anxiety, but his GP and the police were unaware of that because he had sought treatment from an online doctor, as was explained earlier. He did not disclose that information when he applied for his certificate renewal.
The medical checks for firearms licensing have been significantly strengthened in recent years. Medical information for firearms licensing has been a requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, when the new guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. An applicant’s doctor must now provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health issues or drug or alcohol abuse, that the applicant has experienced. A firearms licence will not be granted without this information.
A digital firearms marker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted. This means that if a certificate holder has a relevant medical condition during the five years’ validity of the certificate, their GP can alert the police, who will then review whether that individual is still suitable to have a firearms licence, and—if necessary—revoke the licence. Initially, the marker was in the form of a paper marker on a person’s medical record. However, because of concerns that a paper marker could easily be overlooked by a busy GP, work has been done to replace it with a new digital firearms marker.
Use of the digital firearms marker is not a core health requirement for GPs and is not part of the GP contract, nor is it a legal requirement, but the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners support its use, and the BMA issues guidance to GPs about it. Therefore, any GP who fails to engage with the process would be going against the advice of their professional associations, as well as taking a significant risk.
The available data indicates that most GPs in England are applying the digital firearms marker as they are expected to. We have received very encouraging data from NHS England about how the marker is being used by doctors, and we continue to work with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to assess whether there are any regional variations that could signpost whether greater engagement between police and doctors at local level is needed in certain areas.
The data provided by NHS England gives figures for the number of active digital firearms markers applied by GP surgeries in each of the last three years, and—
Mike Tapp
And I will go through the data now, before the hon. Member intervenes and asks for it. If there are any gaps in it, I will welcome an intervention at the end, and I will take note and we can write back.
In 2022-23, 93,700 new digital markers were applied, in 2023-24 that figure was 85,650, and in the latest year for which data is available, 2024-25, 98,690 new digital markers were applied to medical records. Those are broadly the numbers we would expect when compared with the data for the number of firearms licence applications and renewals made each year.
We also have data on the number of cases where a GP has notified the police of a medical concern about a certificate holder following a review prompted by the digital marker. In 2022-23, 1,180 cases were referred by GPs to police forces as a result of the digital marker, in 2023-24 that figure was 1,040, and in 2024-25 it was 1,140. That data is also broadly where we would expect it to be when compared with the annual figures for revocations of licences by police forces, and it gives us confidence that GPs are using the digital firearms marker as it is designed to work.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sad to hear that the Minister is not following the logic for making the digital marker compulsory. Without compulsion, the system is weak and public safety is undermined, as is demonstrated by the tragic cases that have been mentioned today. A quick google tells me that there are 38,000 to 39,000 fully qualified GPs. I think the Minister said that the number of GPs using the medical marker is around 18,000, which means that 20,000 GPs are not using it, so the system is not anything like as effective as it should be. As I said, if a compulsory system were introduced, there would be a check between the granting and renewal of shotgun and firearm licences.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I cannot comment directly on the data that he provided from his quick google—GPs may be qualified but not practising, and I would not want to jump to any conclusions—but that can certainly be taken away. It is the Government’s position that it is not necessary to make use of the firearms digital marker mandatory. If there was compelling evidence of systemic failure by GPs to engage with the digital marker, the case for mandatory requirement would be stronger, but that is not the picture painted by the available data. In fact, it shows that the digital marker is already being applied and used by most GPs.
Helen Maguire
I am listening intently to the Minister, but if he is saying that the number of people who have been referred to their GP with potential conditions and the number of markers are as expected, I cannot understand what difference it would make if the marker were mandatory. It seems as though it is sort of happening already, and if there were no additional cost to making it mandatory, then I struggle to understand why it is difficult for the Government to change their position.
Mike Tapp
We need to bear in mind that the governing bodies that oversee GPs are against this, given the potential for liability if a GP failed to disclose something to the police. I assure the hon. Member that the Home Office will keep our approach under review, as we do with all aspects of firearms licensing control, but we believe that the data available at this time shows that mandating is not necessary, and that the digital marker quite simply is being applied and used by most GPs.
Edward Morello
Without wishing to labour the point, and accepting that the data may in fact show that we are getting the level of penetration that we would expect, there is undoubtedly an unquantifiable risk of another tragedy happening. Given the level of uptake in a mandatory system, and given the requests of the sector—and, in fact, the BMA—for use of the marker to be made mandatory, it seems to me, purely from the perspective of de-risking it for the Government, that that would be a logical and relatively simple thing to do, so that, when we inevitably return, at some point in the next three to five years, to talk about another tragic death, it is not laid at the feet of this Government for following the mistake of the previous Government and not making it mandatory.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very well-made point. This is of course being kept under review. Today’s debate is important and will of course be listened to by the Home Office, but as it stands our position is that the evidence is showing us that GPs are using the marker as we would expect them to.
I am conscious of time, so I will move on to the points made on shotguns, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) would not want me to miss them. We know that shotguns are used for a range of legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and hunting, and that the vast majority are used safely and responsibly. We also recognise that shooting contributes to the very important rural economy.
However, legally held shotguns have been used in a number of homicides and other serious incidents in recent years, including the fatal shootings in Plymouth in August 2021. That is why we have committed to a public consultation on strengthening the licensing controls on shotguns, to bring them more into line with the stringent controls on other firearms, in the interest of public safety. We will publish the consultation shortly—I do not have the exact date today. We will carefully consider all the views put forward in response to the consultation before taking any decisions on whether—and what—changes may be necessary in the interest of public safety.
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to impress something upon the Minister. When he spoke about the uses of shotguns, he talked about target shooting and hunting. I gently say to him that these firearms are needed for far more than sport; they are used for land management and for farming. I encourage him, if he has not already, to meet the organisations that represent rural communities to understand how vital shotguns are for rural land management.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his points. I think that was covered in my point about the rural economy—the maintenance of land and pest control, for example, feed into that—but I take the point.
We will also provide an assessment of the impact of any changes that we intend to bring forward, including for policing, certificate holders and rural communities, at the relevant time.
In closing, I thank all Members who have contributed to what has been a thought-provoking debate—I mean that—on an issue that is central to public safety. I am grateful for all contributions. We have strong firearms licensing controls, and we are taking action to improve them further where the evidence shows that that is necessary. As I have said, we do not believe at this point that there is a compelling case for making the digital firearms marker mandatory. However, it is very important that all aspects of firearms controls are as effective and strong as possible, and our controls are kept under constant review.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I can assure the Minister—and you, Ms McVey—that this will be the last time. What is the equivalence between not making medical markers mandatory, when doing so would not cost anything, and yet going ahead with the consultation to move shotguns from section 2 to section 1, which will cost the industry a significant amount of money? The shooting community is all in favour of medical markers being compulsory, but it is opposed to moving shotguns from section 2 to section 1. These actions seem designed to make the shooting community very discontent.
Mike Tapp
This is about evidence, and the evidence that I have presented today suggests that GPs are abiding by the digital marker. The evidence that shotguns have been used in violent crime also exists. But of course, as I laid out, this will go to consultation. The Government are committed to public safety, and we remain open to any steps that could aid us in that effort.
Helen Maguire
I am disappointed that the Minister will not be considering making use of the medical marker mandatory. I hope that he will go away and reconsider, particularly because, as many hon. Members have alluded to, there would be no additional cost to doing so. There is a lot of consensus here; making the medical marker mandatory would be common sense and improve public safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said, it would be a win-win.
I thank the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his personal insight and his continued campaigning on the issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead for the valuable points that she raised about the rural community. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, there is evidence, and the police agree with the proposal, as do the Countryside Alliance, the BMA, police and crime commissioners and firearms certificate holders. I do not want to be here again talking about another incident. I truly hope the Minister will go away and really consider the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.