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.