A parliamentary debate yesterday (23 February) saw the government mount but the weakest, most apologetic defence for considering restricting shotgun ownership by aligning licensing processes under Sections 1 and 2 of the Firearms Act 1968, in the face of overwhelming cross-party opposition. The government confirmed it is seriously considering the alternative proposal from the Countryside Alliance to replace the 38 firearms licensing departments of England and Wales with a single, dedicated licensing body.

The debate, promoted by the parliamentary petition Do not merge section 1 & 2 regulations on firearms licenses that attracted over 120,000 signatures from across the UK, laid bare both the lack of political support for alignment and the success that campaigning on the issue by the Countryside Alliance and others has already had. It signalled that if momentum can be maintained, our objectives have every prospect of being achieved.

Summing up for the government, Policing and Crime Minister Sarah Jones MP addressed directly the Members who had raised our proposal:

“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.”

On alignment and the timescale for the announced consultation, by contrast, her remarks sounded equivocal:

“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.”

The summation followed a debate in which Member after Member from all parts of the House stood to argue that aligning Sections 1 and 2 would damage the legitimate interests of those who rely on shotgun ownership for recreation or as tools of trade, while doing nothing to improve public safety. Representatives from the Labour backbenches, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP and Restore Britain all stood to make the case, and it was clear that the comprehensive briefing the Alliance provided to all MPs ahead of the debate had received close attention.

No Member fully endorsed alignment. The closest any came was one Labour MP, Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) who nevertheless conceded that:

“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.”

The Alliance has never denied the paramount importance of public safety but the absence of any such benefit is one of the clearest reasons to oppose alignment.

Other MPs’ full-throated defences of legitimate shotgun ownership included recounting the economic contribution of shooting, the importance of predator control to conservation and farming, and the need to avoid stretching already hard-pressed police firearms licensing beyond breaking point with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Yesterday’s success would not have been possible without dedicated campaigning from the Countryside Alliance, our members and other rural groups. It is not, however, a moment for complacency. If the government decides, against all reason and evidence, to press ahead with full alignment it has the parliamentary numbers to push it through.

The Countryside Alliance will therefore keep up the pressure through the consultation process and beyond, and we will need your help. If you have not already done so, please sign up to the Campaign for Shooting newsletter without delay, and be among the first to hear of the latest developments.