Firearms Licensing

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his balanced introduction to the debate.

One of the things we get right in this country is our rigorous gun control laws. In the US, we can see the consequences of slack controls, which have resulted in gun carnage at a horrible scale—no matter what President Trump may claim. The lethality of weapons that are routinely available there is extraordinary. Here at home, we already have strong laws, and I am not convinced that merging section 2 shotgun licensing into section 1 is a necessary further step. As other Members have said, there is a risk of serious unintended consequences for the rural economy and community.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point about the UK’s successes in controlling gun crime to date. Does he agree with the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) that the August 2021 murders in Plymouth highlighted significant problems with the implementation of the current regimes around gun checks and that that—as well as any changes to the law—should be a key consideration for the Government?

[John Milne]

Absolutely: let us apply the laws that we already have, as they are well equipped to do the job.

I have been contacted by many constituents about this issue. One constituent, Rob, works as a farm vet, so he is well placed to get an oversight of what is going on. He works with livestock farmers, visits large and small holdings, and sees at first hand how rural businesses operate. He had never written to his MP before but felt it necessary to write to me about this proposal. Rob has seen how shotguns are used responsibly for pest control, protecting animal food stores, managing predation and safeguarding livestock. He understands how tightly regulated the system already is, and he is deeply concerned that a blunt merging of sections 1 and 2 risks placing new financial and bureaucratic barriers in the way of businesses and people who are already under immense pressure.

The proposal to align sections 1 and 2 is presented as a public safety measure, but if that had been in place already, to what extent would it have prevented recent tragedies? The answer is far from clear. The serious failures identified in past cases were ones of process, enforcement and oversight—not failures caused by the legal distinction between shotgun and rifle certification.

This proposal would, however, impose additional administrative burdens on already overstretched firearms licensing units. There are 43 separate licensing authorities across England and Wales, and even more in Scotland. Many already struggle with delays that are measured not in weeks, but in many months. In parts of the country, such as the south-west, it can take years. Some forces have faced backlogs so severe that they have stopped accepting new applications.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency is home to the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, and therefore also to the National Rifle Association. One constituent contacted me to say that it took a year to have the address on their certificate changed, after they moved from Hampshire to Surrey. Does my hon. Friend agree that to improve efficiencies, we need a centralised, digitised licensing regime that enables some of the processes to be sped up, rather than adding further bureaucracy into an already cumbersome system?

[John Milne]

I absolutely agree. We should be doing work to improve what we already have; we do not need a radical change. I question whether taking action that would overwhelm licensing units would actually enhance public safety. Can we seriously expect people to wait years for a licence? We run the risk of turbocharging the black-market demand for guns.

Shooting contributes billions of pounds to the UK and supports tens of thousands of jobs. It underpins conservation work, supports game meat production, sustains rural tourism and hospitality, and provides income in areas where alternative economic activity can be limited. Setting higher barriers to certification will lead to lower participation. The proposed change would be the most significant since 1988, and, according to some estimates, could mean a reduction in the number of licence holders of up to a third. That would be difficult to absorb for farm businesses that are already dealing with rising costs.

We should also bear in mind that the legal test of whether someone is fit to possess a firearm is the same, whether under section 1 or section 2. The background checks, character assessments and medical requirements are already rigorous, and recent reforms have aligned referee requirements. If the objective is public safety, as it should be, we should focus on improvements that would make the most difference—for example, introducing medical markers and consistent medical engagement. During a previous debate in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out a more effective approach to identifying vulnerable or potentially dangerous individuals.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, we already have strict medical controls. Those work, and that is because of the participation of shooting organisations and individuals. Perhaps when the Minister is summing up, she could consider taking a glimpse at what is done in Northern Ireland, as that might be a way forward.

[John Milne]

I think a trip to Northern Ireland is on offer to the Minister, and I am sure that she would have an excellent host in the hon. Gentleman.

[Jamie Stone]

I mentioned killing hooded crows in an earlier intervention, and I think one way that we could boost the industry that the hon. Member is talking about is by eating more game. I am not for one instant advocating eating hooded crows, or cormorants, which I am told they eat in Iceland—although I do not fancy one myself. But game is terribly good food, and children love it once they get a taste for it. I do not know why we do not offer pheasants on school menus. It would save the Exchequer a lot of money to eat the game that we shoot.

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I am a big game meat fan, so I am certainly ready for that.

Moving to a centralised, fully digitised licensing body akin to the DVLA or the DBS, with real-time verification at the point of sale, would directly address weaknesses, improve consistency, reduce fraud and allow police forces to focus on law enforcement rather than administrative licensing functions. If we are serious about safety, that is where our attention should go. The wrong kind of reform could damage viable farm businesses and undermine food production for no clear benefit.

I urge the Government to listen carefully to rural communities, licensing professionals and the evidence. Let us modernise licensing and strengthen the medical safeguards. As a result, we will improve public safety while supporting this valuable industry and community.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Last week, I met 30 or so members of the Hong Kong community in Horsham. These people are professionals: they are teachers, students, engineers, doctors, business owners and directors. They are in work, paying tax, buying homes, raising families and contributing to local life. They came here legally. They came because the British Government made them a promise.

In talking to them, what struck me most was not anger but fear—fear that the basis on which they uprooted their lives is now shifting beneath them. Given the strength of feeling, the numbers affected and Hong Kong’s unique historical context as a former colony, I trust that the Government recognise that the recent proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain will have unintended consequences, and that they will want to address this matter urgently.

In Horsham, nearly 90% of BNO households are homeowners. Clearly, they are not a drain on public resources, and are financially stable, yet some will nevertheless struggle to meet the new income threshold. Some family groups include older applicants, carers or non-working spouses, just as we would expect in any household. Many cannot simply earn more to bridge the gap, and others will take time to move into higher-paid work and transfer their skills and qualifications. Will the Government consider taking account of assets and long-term stability, not earned income alone, when assessing ILR applications for Hong Kong BNOs? My constituents are also deeply concerned about the English language requirement: four in five of them say that they are worried about passing the exam, and they are people who seemed quite fluent when I spoke to them. Obviously this affects older applicants in particular.

These families moved across the world on a promise from the British Government, and there is now a genuine risk that that promise will be broken. In all honesty, I do not think that this new law was ever intended to affect them at all. My asks from the Minister are straightforward: exempt Hong Kong BNOs from the new earned settlement criteria, provide transitional protections for those already on the five-year settlement pathway, and assess household income, not individual income, to keep families together.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I will turn now to the issue of asylum support, and make two key points. First, people claiming asylum cannot access the UK’s mainstream benefits system. They receive initial full-board accommodation for 90 days, plus about £10 weekly. After that they move to longer-term housing and get around £49.18 a week for food, clothing and toiletries, which is much less than universal credit rates.

Secondly, the UK’s asylum support system is not a pull factor, as some, including Migration Watch, have claimed. The UK rate of £49.18 weekly barely beats France’s €47.60. Once we add in the costs of making an illegal crossing from France, the UK benefits system does not leave an adult male asylum seeker in a better position than in France. Evidence also shows that family, community and cultural connections matter far more than the benefits system.

Picture this, Dr Murrison: imagine that tomorrow we cut all asylum seeker financial support and closed all asylum hotels. What would happen next? Without alternatives, it would increase rough sleeping by over 500%, with over 30,000 more destitute people on our streets. That approach would clearly be immoral, as I trust hon. Members would agree. It would also pile massive pressure on social services, local authorities, NHS emergency services and the police.

The petitioners’ alternative to state support in the community is mass detention. Migration Watch also calls for the detention of all asylum claimants, as its director told me in a conversation last week as I prepared for this debate. Let us think that through. It would clearly be unlawful. It would also be inhumane, financially ruinous and completely useless. There are about 102,000 people in UK asylum accommodation, but our immigration detention capacity is only 2,200, so we would need a massive new detention facility expansion for immediate mass detention.

What would that expansion cost? Based on Ministry of Justice prison expansion plans, the National Audit Office estimates that a single new prison place would cost at least £470,000, excluding land and other costs. That is £47 billion for 100,000 detention places, which is about a third of the entire NHS budget. On top of that, immigration detention costs are about £122 per day, adding up to around £4.5 billion per year for that number of people. Clearly, detention on that scale would mean massive cuts to public services and huge tax rises.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We would all like to see an end to the use of hotels, which is both wasteful and very unpopular in local communities. However, would the hon. and learned Member agree that the long-term solution to that, releasing pressure across the entire system, is a proper returns agreement with as many countries as possible, but definitely with France, so that we do not need to use any form of accommodation, large camps or hotels?

[Tony Vaughan]

We did have a returns agreement with Europe before we withdrew from the European Union—the Dublin regulation. It was this Government that negotiated a new agreement with France in the UK-France deal. That deal, which is compliant with all the international obligations we have, is the potential way forward to solving the problem.