Firearms Licensing
Debate between Dave Doogan and Jamie Stone(1 week, 3 days 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
Jamie Stone
I think it is only fair that I offer an abject apology to the hon. Member, and a large refreshment will be his later today.
Dave Doogan
It is only fair that I accept both of those from the hon. Member. We are here because of the 121,000 signatures on the petition, and many of the constituencies with the highest counts of signatures are in Scotland, where gun ownership per capita is much higher than it is elsewhere in these isles, for entirely predictable and understandable reasons.
Angus and Perthshire Glens has the highest response rate in the United Kingdom; 550 opponents of the Government’s proposal have come forward from my constituency. They have good reason, because whether someone is up Glen Prosen, Glen Isla, Glen Clova, Glen Esk, or Glen Lethnot, or in Strathtay, Strathtummel or Strathmore, their possession, operation, use and discharge of their shotgun is just a part of everyday life. It is an essential tool for the maintenance of a rural way of living. As other right hon. and hon. Members have attested, concern is growing that perhaps this Government are not fully conversant—or nearly conversant enough—with what goes on in rural communities.
In terms of the evidence On public safety, I do not think that anybody in the Chamber is minded or motivated to get in the way of something that would improve firearms or shotgun control to protect the public. No one would object to that. What people in this Chamber, and many people outside it, object to is a vast increase in the bureaucratic burden that will deliver no significant increase in public safety.
As other Members have pointed out, during this debate we should remember those who have suffered at the hands of delinquent use of shotguns and firearms. That is vital, but so too is ensuring that any measures to modify the regulation around public safety are effective. Where it is seen to not be effective—and it is clearly demonstrated that these measures will not be effective—we should be very sceptical indeed.
I will not cover again the points that others have made on the well-documented difference in effect and lethality between firearms and shotguns. That substantial difference in lethality is why, dating back to 1920, they have been categorised differently. That difference has not changed; it is the same difference in 2026. If we look to tragedies such as that which happened in Plymouth, the problem that facilitated that tragedy was one not of regulatory impropriety, but of application of the regulation. If the regulation had been applied effectively in that instance, there is a good probability that that tragedy would never have happened.
Around 25% of firearms applications already take more than a year to process and 30 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have missed the four-month processing target already. Licensing fees have risen by 133% and applying section 1 checks to all shotguns risks overwhelming an already underperforming system, which will present clear demonstrable challenges to our rural communities. Police Scotland operate a single national licensing unit, which consistently outperforms forces in England and Wales—I say that not as a cheap political point but because, quite clearly, if we centralise, standardise and properly resource the licensing regime, we will see substantial improvements in turnaround times.
As well as that, we need far more robust public protections. Do not let me forget to mention that, despite the work that Police Scotland’s licensing unit does, many of my constituents and others in Scotland still have to run the gauntlet with the general practice regime, which is by no means straightforward; that is certainly also something that should be looked at.
Strengthening firearms licensing units throughout the United Kingdom would be positive; standardisation of it would be positive; electronic record keeping would be positive, and so would closing the gaps in private shotgun sales by requiring sellers to verify buyer certificates directly with issuing police via a secure online portal. Those are all reasonable and practical changes that can be presumed to have a positive effect on the regime, in contrast to what the Government are proposing with their merger of the two sections.
Today’s debate is well attended and people are speaking passionately about the strength of feeling that they from their constituents all up and down these islands—mine included—that there is enough burden on ordinary people in rural communities trying to maintain the countryside in the way that we all expect them to. They are trying to make their farm businesses work properly and deal with the effects of challenges ranging from the family farm tax to employer national insurance contributions, and from the business property relief to the tax on crew cab pickups. Many people across rural Britain are thinking, “What next from central Government?”.
Ceasefire in Gaza
Debate between Dave Doogan and Jamie Stone(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Some 23% of my casework since October has been on the humanitarian disaster in Israel and Gaza. The vast majority of my constituents seek a ceasefire, and to see the death and destruction of communities, and the intolerable and unimaginable misery of innocent civilians, brought to an end. Angus constituents also highlight Israel’s right to defend itself and the plight of the people who were slaughtered by the murderous criminal terrorists who are the members of Hamas in their appalling attacks on 7 October. I have unity with all my constituents in their varying ambitions, because the situation in Gaza is a disaster for everybody, no one more so than the innocent civilians within Gaza itself, but also for the people of Israel. I refuse to believe that we have some sort of moral superiority in this country when we call for a ceasefire. I also believe that there are people—good people—in Israel who are desperately sad at what is happening to innocent people in Gaza. That is why we need to give voice to them, and their ambitions, in this Parliament and in this state.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Has the hon. Gentleman, like me, been struck—I am sure he has—by the extraordinary number of decent ordinary constituents, who normally would not get in touch with their MP, getting in touch on this particular issue?
Dave Doogan
Yes, I have. That is why it is a great sadness that it has taken so long for this Parliament to have such an in-depth debate on this global issue of utter catastrophe. I am very pleased that my SNP colleagues have tabled this Opposition Day motion, which is important in allowing Members on both sides of the House to give voice to their constituents’ anguish over what is an utter disaster zone: 30,000 civilians dead; a stain on all our consciences. Civilians who played no part in the atrocities of 7 October—
Ukraine
Debate between Dave Doogan and Jamie Stone(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am sorry that the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), is no longer in his place, because my principal motivation for coming along to this debate was to highlight some of the deeply frustrating, upsetting and challenging circumstances being experienced by constituents of mine in Angus who are trying to sponsor people on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Of course, my situation in Angus is no different from that of MPs across the House who are trying to expedite that humanitarian assistance at a very human level.
The Homes for Ukraine scheme sits in stark contrast departmentally with the role of very hard-working Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, who have discharged their responsibilities with enthusiasm and efficacy and to great effect. I hope it is acknowledged that they will not often hear a comment like that from an SNP MP in this place, and I do not make that observation lightly. It is in sharp contrast to Ministers in the Home Office. That is not just a rhetorical observation or a political point—I genuinely wish it was not so, but it is.
The evidence is there for all to see in comparative analysis between what the United Kingdom has managed to achieve under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and what others in Europe have achieved where a Government’s ambition has matched the ambition manifest in the communities of those countries. We see that in Ireland, which has given refuge to considerably more refugees per head of population than the United Kingdom. The same is true of Denmark, which has received one Ukrainian per 194 members of the population. In the UK, that is depressingly one Ukrainian per 1,249 members of the population. The United Kingdom has not even managed double what Ireland has achieved, and Ireland is 15 times smaller than the United Kingdom.
As if that were not bad enough, in answer to my written parliamentary question about unaccompanied minors trying to access the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the Home Office has confirmed that unaccompanied minors are only eligible if they are travelling to reunite with a parent or legal guardian in the UK. My constituents in Angus are suffering from the same predicament that was so eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) in regard to young people. In my case, it is two young 17-year-old boys. As she said, we all know 17-year-old kids. Can the House imagine what it is like being stuck in Budapest, alone and barred from refuge in the United Kingdom? It is to the United Kingdom’s shame that that situation has been allowed to come to pass.
Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I will not shy away from looking at the integrated review, because if we have learned anything over the past couple of months, it is that events have a terrible habit of catching up with us if we find ourselves in any way unprepared. If the United Kingdom prosecutes its integrated review in the way it has set out, it will have an Indo-Pacific tilt. It was never a great policy to begin with, in my view—it reeked slightly of a post-Brexit rebound effect, trying to get as far away from the European continent as possible, and before tensions required it, a bit like someone turning up at a party in the afternoon with their carry-out before anybody else is on the same page. That particular strategy did not merit being advanced before the events in Ukraine, and it certainly does not merit continued investment down that path since then.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to enlarge on something I touched on. He is completely correct to say that we have to look carefully at where we should have our fleet and where we should be amassing our forces. I personally believe it is the high north and the north Atlantic—the bit opposite the top of my constituency.
Dave Doogan
A rare moment of accord between the hon. Member and I. He is absolutely right. If we look at the dysfunctionality of Russia’s land forces in Ukraine, we can contrast that with Russia’s sub-sea naval forces and secure precisely no comfort from thinking that that reads across. They are among the very best in the world, crewing some of the very best submarines in the world and deploying some of the very best tactics in the world. If we think that we can combat that threat in the South China sea, we are very much mistaken. That alone is an opportunity to quickly have a root-and-branch review of the integrated review.
The Minister for Europe and North America is in his place to reply for the Government. We have touched on the grain situation in Ukraine. It is not NATO’s, the west’s or Ukraine’s responsibility, but humanity’s responsibility to get that grain out of Odessa and into global markets where it can provide a lifeline—literally, sadly—to the poorest in the global community. If it is sufficiently, or even remotely, close to his area of responsibility, he might consider whether there is some mechanism that clever people in the Department for International Trade, or his Cabinet colleagues, could look at to forward buy the value of the grain in Ukraine so that it is already sold before it leaves. That would deny Russia the opportunity, however tenuous it might be, of saying that it is aiding the Ukrainian war effort with finance.
If the finance is already in place, that argument no longer stands and it will be evidence that, if Russia still blockades outward transit of grain from Odessa, that is purely a malign act of belligerence that will cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. Getting the grain out would also vacate the silos and storage facilities in Ukraine so that they can receive this year’s harvest and not store up the same problem for years to come. It is vital that we co-ordinate the best ideas around that priority, so I look forward to hearing how we might do that.