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.