Firearms Licensing

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.

I want to put on record that I enjoy shooting. I have also been shot—so I am one who has seen both sides of this equation. I thank the more than 738 South Shropshire residents who had signed this petition as of last week.

As the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) mentioned, a large proportion of firearm licences are held in remote regions and mainly up in Scotland. However, South Shropshire is among the top two or three areas within the country in terms of licence holders, so this issue is important to my constituents. It has an impact not only on people who use shooting as a pastime, but on farmers and people who use guns for pest control, such as gamekeepers. Shooting also brings a lot of money into rural communities and the rural economy, particularly in the winter months when a lot of the tourist areas—of which South Shropshire is obviously the best—are impacted; it helps to bring extra trade in.

One of the numbers I picked up when researching this topic is that on 31 March 2025 there were around 170,000 section 1 firearm licences. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who did very well in introducing this debate, mentioned that there are more than half a million section 2 shotgun licence holders. I will come on to that later, because it will cause a significant issue if section 1 and 2 firearms licences are merged. Many differences have been mentioned, but they are based not just on the recognition of lethality, but on the user profile—how holders are going to use them and in which circumstances they will be used—which starts to get very complex between the different section 1 and 2 licences.

A person must prove a “good reason” for each section 1 firearm they wish to possess, whereas with a section 2 licence, the holder only needs a “good reason” for having a shotgun. There are also different restrictions on the buying, selling and storing of ammunition, which start to become very complex, given what a shotgun will do compared with other firearms.

I understand the reasons for introducing the changes, but let us look at the two tragic incidents in 2021 and 2024; my thoughts go out to everybody that was killed at that tragic time. First, Jake Davidson murdered five people with a legally held shotgun, even though local police had warned about his unsuitability to carry a shotgun. The merging of section 1 and section 2 would not have made any difference in that tragic incident. In 2024, Nicholas Prosper committed a criminal offence by forging a section 2 certificate to acquire a shotgun and used it to murder three family members. Merging section 1 and 2 would have not made an impact on either of those tragic incidents, horrible as they are.

Let us look at the impacts these proposals will have on my residents and many others across the country. This is a very reasoned debate, and all sides are putting forward measured responses. We all want to see appropriate measures in place to protect citizens, and we currently have some of the most robust measures in place to deal with licensing.

If someone holds a shotgun licence, it is quite easy, over five years, to casually shoot a few clay pigeons, do a few game shoots and occasionally work with a farmer to deal with pest control. It becomes very hard if they then have to go through the same restrictions as under section 1, where specific land is needed to cull deer or things like that. There is a limit to how many people a farmer can allow on their land to do that, and that starts to restrict the ability to do these things.

BASC—I must also declare that I am a member—has done extensive research suggesting that upward of £1 billion of the £3 billion in gross value added contributed by shooting is at risk of being lost overnight, as well as 20,000 jobs. There is also a huge amount of conservation that goes unnoticed, but according to the 2024 “Value of Shooting” report the about £500 million per annum that goes into conservation would be lost. A reduction in shooting would lead to fewer cover crops and less predator control—the list goes on. There would be a huge impact on conservation.

Let us turn to our farmers and the great work they do. We have heard from different speakers about the impact this proposal would have on them. I grew up working on a farm, although I did not live on one, and pest control was part of farmers’ everyday life—hon. Members have mentioned crows and things like that. If someone has to get a section 1 firearms licence, pest control on that farm is not going to happen. There will be a huge impact. The administrative burden on farmers, with everything else they have to go through, will have a massive impact. I have spoken to many of my local farmers, and it feels like this is another attack on their rural way of life.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point about the administrative burden, but does he agree that the most burdensome element would probably be the restrictions placed on ammunition? In particular, individual licence holders would have a limit on the amount of ammunition they could own at any one time. I think something like 250 million cartridges are sold every year in the UK, and that would all have to be recorded and auditable; there would have to be an audit trail and probably an inspection regime to ensure that people were not buying or acquiring more than their limit. The administration of that would involve enormous numbers of people and probably result in the end in the acquisition of a huge computer system at vast cost, just to track something that is not at the moment identified as a problem.

[Stuart Anderson]

My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point, which will often be overlooked when people are looking at the difference between section 1 and section 2. People will bulk order shotgun cartridges; they will be able to pick them up when they need them for a shoot, legally, with a licence—they cannot buy them without that licence. As I raised at the beginning of the debate, there are about 170,000 section 1 licences and 500,000 section 2 shotgun licences. The administrative burden for the police would be off the scale, and it is hard to see how they could even deal with this.

That moves me nicely on to my next point, about the impact on the police. As we have heard, the National Crime Agency has stated:

“Legally-held firearms are rarely used”

in criminal activity. On top of that, as I mentioned at the beginning, how on earth will police authorities deal with 500,000 additional licences if they are merged into section 1? That is a significant burden, particularly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) just mentioned, in terms of ammunition. That issue is often overlooked, but people buy pallet loads because they are organising or planning shoots; it is quite a regular thing for people who shoot week in, week out. That will create a significant burden that I do not believe any police force will be able to deal with under the constraints they currently face. I speak regularly with my police authority, West Mercia police, and they do a great job in this area, but the current system already places pressures on them.

This has been a reasoned debate, and it is only fair that I mention what some of my constituents have said. Anthony, who regularly shoots, said:

“This is yet another culture war inspired attack”

on rural communities.” Tom, who is also from my constituency, said:

“the latest proposals seem more designed to punish”

than to legislate. That is the impact; that is how this proposal is landing out there. I know that that is not the intention, and that the Government are listening, and we are trying to have the most reasoned debate on this issue.

The Countryside Alliance has suggested an alternative solution. The hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned that people are aware that the legislation on licensing might need to change, and the Countryside Alliance has suggested the good idea of having a single, centralised firearms licensing body—like the Disclosure and Barring Service or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—which would allow the police to perform their normal roles, rather than becoming a licensing body, which they are not set up to be. A centralised digital system could work with local police authorities, and I am sure the Countryside Alliance has much more information if the Minister requires it.

To conclude, a merger of sections 1 and 2, although it has been set out with good intentions, will have far-reaching consequences that have probably not been thought through in great detail. It will result in a loss to the rural economy, with far fewer people having licences and the police facing an unsustainable administrative burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

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

I came here today because I want to listen to the arguments and help inform my thinking about gun licensing. This debate is about one very narrow aspect of shotgun licensing and, while my instinct is always towards stricter gun control, my starting point has to be that any change to the law must make people safer in a meaningful way. It should not add complexity or bureaucracy unless there is a clear and proportionate safety benefit.

I am proud that Britain has strong gun control. Public safety has long underpinned our approach to gun control, and that is reflected in our relatively low levels of firearms offences. Shotguns have legitimate uses, both for sport and animal control. The process for obtaining a shotgun licence is simpler than that for other firearms. Police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted with a firearm, has a good reason to own one and will not endanger public safety. At the moment, shotgun licences are generally granted unless there is a good reason to refuse one, whereas rifles, which are more powerful, require a higher level of proof. They require applicants to demonstrate a good reason for the use of each firearm.

The consultation that the Government introduced asked whether those tests should be joined together under a single framework to make application rules for shotguns the same as those for rifles. The current framework has worked well for the vast majority of licence holders, but we have seen tragedies with legally held firearms, such as in Plymouth in 2021 and Woodmancote in 2020. The Government therefore launched a consultation on whether the existing distinctions still made sense. I came here today because I am genuinely undecided. I do not know the best way forward, so it has been interesting to hear the debate, particularly the details of coroners’ reports and of what underpinned the tragedies that we have seen with legally held firearms.

I grew up in a very small Cumbrian village of about 300 people. I may have shot a few tin cans in my time, so I understand that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and I understand how important shooting is to rural life. A number of my rural constituents have reached out to share how these potential changes would affect their community. I am glad that the Government are committed to listening to what is said about the role that shooting plays in the rural economy and in rural culture. My constituents have reminded me just how strict the safeguards that are already in place are—background checks, medical markers, police interviews and renewals every five years are not trivial hurdles.

Of course, there are substantial differences between the ways that shotguns and rifles are used. Shotguns are generally less concealable, more associated with game and pest control, and less commonly used in organised criminality than other firearms. However, at the same time we have to look at the logic of the system. There are practical difficulties to having different legal tests for different weapons, and it can feel inconsistent to the public, particularly to those who are not used to being around guns and the legal use of firearms. It can be difficult for the police to apply different tests.

Of course, those who have been bereaved by gun violence, those who have been harmed by guns, those who work in domestic abuse settings, and those who have experienced domestic abuse in which firearms were a part will rightly ask what we are going to do to help prevent future tragedies. Given how deadly they are, we of course need tight controls on weapons; I think that everyone here agrees with that. There have already been important steps in this area to try to prevent harm, including a greater focus on screening for any signs of potential future violence, and police interviewing partners or household members, where reasonable, to spot signs of domestic abuse or other red flags.

I will touch on suicide prevention. We know from studies of suicide prevention that restricting the means of suicide can save lives. That is why we have controls on the sale of paracetamol, and why we have blister packs for medication. Interrupting the suicidal impulse before harm can be caused is really important. Shotgun deaths are a very small proportion of total deaths by suicide but people who attempt suicide by shotgun normally die. Making it harder to obtain a gun could possibly prevent impulsive acts or accidents.

The question before us is not whether we want to prevent tragedies; everybody in this Chamber wants to do so. This is about whether aligning the licensing regimes would reduce deaths and serious harms, whether any benefits would justify the additional burdens placed on applicants and police forces, and whether there would be any unintended consequences. I know that police forces are already under pressure on the licensing of firearms.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, in coming here today to try to find those answers. On the police force side, West Mercia currently takes about 12 months to renew a licence. Licences are for five years. My constituents say that they start to apply at the three-year to three-and-a-half-year point. If, for some reason, someone leaves renewal until six months before it is due, they will have six months without a licence that they might need for their job. There are already huge pressures on the police; does the hon. Member realise how big a concern that is?

[Lizzi Collinge]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We already have backlogs for firearms licensing. Some people rely on firearms for their living. If there are changes to the licensing laws, those need to come with proper resourcing to make sure that they are actually enforceable. As we have heard in this debate, it does not really matter what is on the page; it matters what happens in reality—as with any law that we pass. That needs to be thought about very carefully.

We need to make sure that these rules would meaningfully increase safety, not just ramp up bureaucracy, and that they are evidence-led, proportionate and targeted at genuine risk. I will continue to listen; this debate has been absolutely fascinating. I will also listen to my constituents, the police, and experts in lots of different areas. I urge the Minister to ensure that any way forward be informed by the evidence and by the practical realities on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stuart Anderson]

I hope that the last three hours have been an informed debate that will help the Minister shape a way forward. Without a doubt, if the two licences merge, additional resources for the police will be needed, at huge cost. Will the Minister seriously look at putting that money into stopping illegal weapons on the streets, rather than merging these two licences?

[Sarah Jones]

I will come to that. 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, and it has highlighted so far—

Town and City Centre Safety

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Baggy Shanker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such shops do not help other businesses and residents, and do not make our city centres a safe environment, so more measures are needed to tackle that.

Last year, there was another really difficult day for our city. Gurvinder Singh Johal, also known as Danny, was tragically murdered as he was going about his business in a Lloyds Bank branch on a Tuesday afternoon. It was utterly devastating for his family. When crimes like that happen in plain sight, in places that we use regularly and consider to be safe, it is not surprising that public confidence is shaken. Communities are left wondering whether the towns and cities they know and love really are the places that they see in front of them. Public safety is not just about law enforcement; as my constituent Tirath puts it, it is also about preserving the character of the places we call home.

Constituents up and down the country, in towns and cities from Stoke-on-Trent to Somerset, share the same feelings. We are here today because we want to take our constituents’ concerns seriously. We are here because when they tell us that more needs to be done for them to feel like crime is being taken seriously and tackled, we want to listen. Most importantly, we are here because although austerity damaged our towns and cities, it did not break them. We want to crack on and make changes so that everyone can enjoy our town and city centres as the brilliant and buzzing places that we know they can be.

That is why I want to talk about what comes next. We know that keeping our communities safe is not about warm words; it is about action. That means working hand in hand with the police and our partners to ensure that people feel welcome and secure spending time in our towns and cities.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I have recently completed a “shop local” survey of almost 4,500 residents, and they said that a cleaner high street would improve community pride and help to reduce crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good initial approach, although it does not replace police on the beat?

[Baggy Shanker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need clean, vibrant, buzzing city centres, and organisations must work in partnership with the police—it is everyone’s responsibility.

At home in Derby, I have worked to drive practical action on crime and antisocial behaviour. I have teamed up with local partners and my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, to hold regular city centre summits. I pay tribute to the organisations that have got round the table with us, including Safe and Sound, the Derbyshire constabulary and the Derby City Youth Alliance. The work they do day to day to support our city centre and ensure it is a place that our community can enjoy is absolutely vital. There is still much more to do, but we are taking steps in the right direction.

Constituents regularly tell me that when police are not visible, they feel more worried about their safety in the city centre. On a recent walkabout with local police, I was pleased to see at first hand how work to recruit and deploy more police officers and public protection officers is helping residents to feel safe and supported when they are out and about in Derby. We also know that action at a local level needs backing with investment, resources and the visible, responsive police presence our communities want to see.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Although I will not give out the detail until Thursday—I feel like I am going to say that a lot today—there is absolutely a need to look at the funding model. That is why I say that the strategy has to be different from what has been delivered before. Even if I had the moon on a stick and all the money in the world, the way that things are commissioned under the current model would not be the right way to go. The strategy has to be truly cross-governmental, because for too long—I should not say this as a Home Office Minister—the criminal justice part of this, rather than the housing part, the health part or the other commissioning bodies that exist in our country, has had supremacy, so there will definitely be things about commissioning in the strategy.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I have unfortunately met constituents—women and girls—who have suffered extreme violence and sexual assault, and I have seen at first hand the devastating impact that it has on them. They have said to me that they want tougher sentences and that they want this issue dealt with, because it is destroying lives. Can the Minister confirm to women and girls across South Shropshire that the strategy will deliver for them?

[Jess Phillips]

I will absolutely promise this to the women across the hon. Member’s constituency, and all the constituencies represented in this Chamber—the idea that a piece of paper written by any Government will suddenly, overnight, make those women safe would be a lie, and I am not willing to do that. It is going to take a huge effort and a lot of work over a good many years to undo the culturally unacceptable situation that his constituents have been faced with. So what I will say is that the intention of the strategy is that, wherever a woman comes forward—whether to the police, health services or social services—and also wherever their perpetrator presents, it is dealt with by the state, because for too long victims have been left to just deal with it on their own.

Nationality and Borders Bill (First sitting)

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

[Stuart Anderson]

[Stuart Anderson]

[The Chair]

Nationality and Borders Bill (Second sitting)

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Finally, Stuart.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Zoe, I am trying to understand one of the points that you made earlier and your example of the young gentleman from Syria who came over here. You said that, under the legislation, even if he is sent out of the country, he will try to get back in, regardless of the legislation, even though he knows the system. Is that solely because he has family members here, or because, no matter what legislation we put in place, people will still—even when they know the system—try to come back in? Will you expand on that, please?

Zoe Gardner: I certainly would not like to say that I know anything about his intentions individually, but I would say that, as a young person and a refugee, if he were to be sent to another country, anybody in those circumstances would seek to be with their loved ones. That is the natural and human thing that we would all do. As Lucy Moreton explained clearly, once you have taken such a long and dangerous journey, and seen things that we in this room have certainly never seen and hope never to, there is no prospect of going back or of giving up so, yes, people will try to make the journey back again. It already happens. It is factored into the price in some of the smuggling operations that we hear about, that if you are turned back by the French coastguard, you get one extra shot free on us, half-price or whatever.

People who have made the journey this far and believe that the UK is the place where they will be safe and their human rights respected will seek to come here. We cannot make them disappear, so—this goes to Anne’s point—the only credible response is meaningful and good-faith international co-operation. We need to engage with the French, step up to say that we will take our fair share and then speak from a position of moral authority to ask others to do the same. That means taking in people who have connections to the UK.

[The Chair]

Okay, thank you, Zoe. I will bring in the Minister at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Could you give us your opinion of what the legislation will do to help you in your role when you deal with illegal immigrants?

Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Specifically in relation to the clause 45 defence?

[Stuart Anderson]

Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: If I can start with the background, what we find—forgive me if I tread over ground that you have already been over—is that the defence can be abused either way and there might be ways to alleviate that. We find instances where people who have a genuine claim to be a victim are admitting principal offences—cannabis cultivation or similar—in order to protect the people who exploit them. It tends to have the effect of limiting an investigation, including limiting the examination of telephones or other digital devices that might show us a broader conspiracy, for example. Again, that is because they are still under that control. We see that in an organised way, which I will come to.

Similarly, we see people we believe are genuinely committing offences, such as the organisers of those cannabis growers or people who are in some way managing them, using the defence—some people might use the phrase “Get out of jail free”—to avoid prosecution. In either case, we have seen a high level of organisation, which it is important to point out. I cannot go into the tactical detail in a public forum, but we can see a level of control that goes beyond one organised crime group, for example. Then we see people who are genuinely being exploited perhaps admitting offences and being prosecuted, or being bailed or released under investigation and then simply going round the cycle.

There are two important points around how the legislation currently sits. One is that the defence can be raised at any time, which makes life quite difficult for investigators because they have the original investigation to consider and then they have the secondary, parallel investigation that is required around status. That has to be conducted even if a person has not claimed to be a victim of modern slavery, because that defence could be brought in at any time. I understand that people might initially be hesitant to do that, given that they are being exploited, so it could be problematic to change. However, a second area of interest is that there is no duty for people claiming to be victims to co-operate with the parallel investigation around their status; that is difficult for investigators because there are quite often a few lines of inquiry, with some exceptions.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q We have heard from previous witnesses that the only people who would benefit from the Bill are the people smugglers. Is that your view?

Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I would be hesitant to make that statement. There could be benefits for victims, with various revisions. I would not want to make that statement directly.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Q Mr Kirby, I want to ask about the issue you raised of people raising a defence and there being a delay. The national referral mechanism is meant to make decisions quite speedily, nut it is not doing that. Do you agree that if the NRM were to make decisions more quickly, that would stop this practice?

Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think that would assist hugely. The delay can still be there, because people can choose when to bring the defence, and sometimes that is even at trial. But, yes, more speedy decisions from the civil competent authorities would be helpful, because investigators—we all know that resources are very stretched in every force area—could then focus on the areas they really need to.

Nationality and Borders Bill (First sitting)

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. This will have to be one final question from Mr Anderson and one final answer.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Q I have been listening today in keen trepidation of your answers. When sitting through several of these Bill Committees, we always find people—we will hear it today—who say it goes too far or it is not enough. I represent Wolverhampton, which has certainly stepped up to the plate and done its bit over the last few years. I have heard what you have said from your point of view about the gaps in the Bill. What positives can I take back to Wolverhampton City Council that the Bill will help to alleviate pressures?

Jon Featonby: It is very difficult for me to highlight any positives. That is one of the things that we will continue to raise with parliamentarians and the Home Office, because we do not think the Bill meets those challenges. The Bill is an opportunity to meet some of the challenges, particularly around the move-on period for people when they get refugee status, to make sure that the move from Home Office support to local authority support is as smooth as possible. We hope that as the Bill progresses such issues will continue to be debated. We do not believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, will alleviate any of the current pressures that local authorities face.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Do you not believe it will alleviate any of the pressures that the council will face?

Jon Featonby: No.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us effectively to the end of the time allocated for this morning’s sitting. Mr Featonby, the Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much for joining us. The Committee will meet again this afternoon. The doors will be locked, so Members may leave papers in the room if they wish to do so. You will continue to take oral evidence this afternoon. Please leave promptly and observe social distancing as you go out the exit door.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With great respect, the hon. Gentleman identifies a complexity, but I think he agrees with me that that difference in the law—the 15 and 25-year tariffs—is not justifiable as it stands and needs to be equalised.

The need for overdue action brings me to elements of the Bill that have taken too long to introduce, but which we welcome. My hon. Friends, often working across the parties, have campaigned passionately on important issues and they have secured change. It is welcome that the Government have finally brought before Parliament the long-awaited legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assault on emergency service workers to up to two years in prison. I want to pay special tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in securing this change. They have been campaigning since 2018. Indeed, on 27 April 2018, when the matter of two-year sentences was considered, the then Minister said that

“it would begin to create the kind of situation that exists in Russia, which I hope will never exist in the UK”.

He went on to say that such sentences would create

“a category of a superior form of human being with an entitlement to a quite separate form of protection.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1193.]

Those comments were, frankly, deplorable and the Government’s conversion to the two-year penalty is to be welcomed.

The pandemic has been a powerful reminder, not that one should be needed, of the extraordinary bravery and commitment that our frontline emergency workers have shown throughout. They have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe day in, day out, even at the very height of the first wave, when tests and PPE were so shamefully hard to come by. Despite that work, emergency service workers have been subjected to a rising number of attacks in this past year, with a 31% increase in attacks compared with in 2019.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Recently in Wolverhampton, two ambulance staff were stabbed. I am watching you go through this Bill saying that you welcome and agree with so many things, so why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it? It just makes no sense.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not want to stop the debate for this, but you do not call the person who is speaking “you”. “You” means the Chair; the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I am glad to be speaking about this eagerly awaited Bill because of its importance for the residents of Wolverhampton. I have campaigned and will continue to do so for a safer and cleaner Wolverhampton. I want the residents to be able to walk clean streets day or night and feel safe.

I fully support the Bill and know that it will be welcomed by many of my constituents. I believe in tougher sentencing for child murderers and sex offenders. I approve of the crackdown on knife crime and violent crime, especially to protect emergency workers. Last year, I conducted a community survey. One of the top areas of concern for my residents—even in a pandemic—was crime. Residents are always getting in touch with me about different issues that the Bill addresses. They do not want to see thefts, fly-tipping and unauthorised encampments, and that last point has probably caused me more work than anything as an MP.

Wolverhampton has beautiful parks such as Bantock and West Park, and over the years, these have been home to unauthorised encampments. I want to make it clear that the majority of the Traveller community are law-abiding citizens who cause no trouble in the local community. We in Wolverhampton did see that, but we have also experienced major problems. To deal with that, Wolverhampton Council took out an injunction, giving it extra powers to move unauthorised encampments. Part of the injunction was to build a transit site. I have no problem with that, and I understand that there needs to be a place for the Traveller community to visit. The site chosen was Gorsebrook Road in Dunstall, which is still one of the most deprived areas in Wolverhampton. It was not welcomed by the residents or by the Traveller community. The cost to build the transit site, in an area that I have championed as a nature trail for local schools and residents, is £1 million. The Bill will negate the need for an injunction at the transit site in its current form. I know that work is under way, but I will continue to ask City of Wolverhampton Council, as I do again now, to pause the work, wait for the legislation to be passed, save money, develop the nature trail and build a legacy for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

First, on misinformation and disinformation on the vaccine, as I said earlier, we are working across Government to ensure that the right information is being put out. With specific reference to refugee groups, we have health facilities, and refugees have access to medical help and support, and obviously that has continued throughout the coronavirus pandemic. When it comes to people getting the vaccine, as I said earlier, everyone should ensure that when their turn comes, they take the jab and ignore this misinformation. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member is shaking her head; everyone across Government is working night and day to deal with misinformation. I have said it many times; I hope that all colleagues in the House will unite across the board and forget political divisions to ensure that everybody who should get the jab absolutely takes a jab.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I have been running a campaign in Wolverhampton to raise awareness of what support is available should people become victims of crime. I thank the Secretary of State for all the work she has done in our great city, but can she tell me what more can be done to provide support for these victims and ensure a safer Wolverhampton?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I look forward to coming back to Wolverhampton, obviously when circumstances permit. I also thank him for the great work he is doing with local groups, organisations and police to protect the victims of crime, but also to do much more on preventing crime. The police uplift, more police officers, the record sums of cash that we are putting into policing—all of this will go towards preventing crime, but also ensuring that victims are safeguarded.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

No. I am very comfortable in underlining the Government’s commitment to defending our national security. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about structure, this is about having a whole-Government approach, ensuring that each part of Government is engaged and working, with the concept of fusion in drawing this together. That is what we do, with our National Security Council and the accountability through that to deliver.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the people of Wolverhampton that our intelligence and security agencies are capable of identifying and dealing with any threat in this evolving battle space?

[James Brokenshire]

I can tell my hon. Friend of the support and resourcing that is given to our intelligence and security agencies and how we have such world-leading capabilities. We can be proud of the work they do for us—and therefore for his constituents in Wolverhampton, and indeed for constituents across the country—as we give them that support in defending our security.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I wish to start by endorsing some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the use of polygraphs. The Minister will know that I have been in touch with him a number of times on this particular issue, and I accept his assurances that they will be used simply for behavioural science purposes and not for legal purposes.

I wish to speak to amendments 40 and 42. As others have said, there have been a number of tragic terrorist attacks this year and there is an urgent need to protect people from further terrorist violence, but we need measures that will keep the public safe, not give the Government free rein to restrict the rights of innocent people on a never-ending basis based on little more than a hunch. We must ensure that our security services have the tools and resources that they need to do their jobs, but we must also ensure that any new powers and legislation will be necessary, effective and proportionate to the threats that we face. That is not the case when it comes to clauses 37 and 38, as they would massively expand the Home Secretary’s powers to impose terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which can include curfews and electronic tagging. These changes would essentially mean a return to control orders, as Members from all parts of the House have pointed out, and they were heavily criticised for getting the balance wrong between national security and civil liberties and were then replaced by TPIMs by the coalition Government in 2011.

There is minimal evidence that putting power in the hands of a single Minister to impose curfews and tagging will do anything to keep people safe, but it will put the rights and freedoms of innocent people at risk. These changes are opposed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Amnesty and Liberty, and the Liberal Democrats are also opposing these two clauses today. We had tabled amendments to remove them from the Bill and to keep the existing safeguards in place, and we were pleased to transfer our names to other amendments that seek to do the same.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to demand an effective, evidence-based approach to combating terrorism. Let me end by pointing out that this is the eighth counter-terrorism Bill in 10 years. If more legislation was the answer, we might have stopped these kinds of attacks by now.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

As terrorism evolves, the modus operandi of terrorist groups starts to move. If more legislation has to be brought in at a later time, does the hon. Lady accept that we have to do that to evolve with the terrorist groups and how they operate, and it is about getting that fine balance right?

[Daisy Cooper]

Yes, of course I accept that there will be occasions when more legislation is needed, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, her Committee has taken evidence, and there is no compelling evidence as to why these two measures on the burden of evidence and the renewal of TPIM orders are needed.

There must be a much greater focus on effective measures that encourage de-radicalisation and rehabilitation, but instead we have in these two clauses the Government preparing for a power grab that could genuinely destroy innocent people’s lives, without presenting the public with a single shred of evidence that these measures will do anything to keep people safe or that the existing measures should be changed. That is why we will oppose them.