Andrew George
Main Page: Andrew George (Liberal Democrat - St Ives)Department Debates - View all Andrew George's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
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?