Blake Stephenson MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Given the scale and significance of the Mandelson files due to be released, why does the Minister not accept that the review of those files over the Whitsun recess would be a good use of everyone’s time, with questions to Ministers being put after 1 June when we return? Is it because Ministers intend to limit scrutiny by this House? That is exactly what it looks like to me and to my constituents.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to Lords amendments 5C and 6B. Before I do so, may I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this issue? I congratulate hon. Members who spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents. I pay tribute to my constituent Tracey Hanson, who is watching this debate from the Gallery. Tracey’s son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey has been on an 11-year journey of immense pain, and she has channelled that pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims who must deal with the criminal justice system. Tracey has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The campaign is driven by a simple demand: victims and bereaved families should be properly informed of their rights, and those rights should have parity with offenders’ rights under the scheme—something that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Tracey’s campaign was born from personal injustice. She was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh’s killer. When she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected, because it arrived outside of office hours. That is totally unacceptable. I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords amendment 6B, which will place a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That change is a direct result of Tracey’s work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to improve the legislation through the introduction of Josh’s law. Other families who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic situations will benefit from Tracey’s work, and the work of all campaigners. It is because of that work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme. I welcome Lords amendment 5C, which will extend the period within which an appeal can be considered from 28 days from the date of sentence to six months from the date of the sentence, where that is in the interests of justice. That is a significant step forward for victims’ rights, but, while I welcome it, true justice requires absolute parity between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims to appeal sentences. Hon. Members from across the House have made that point today, and I hope that the Government have heard it. Despite the positive step forward in this Bill, I know that Tracey will continue her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law. On that note, may I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracey later this year to discuss the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals? In the Minister’s summing-up speech, I would appreciate it if she could confirm that Tracey would be welcome at that meeting. I also mention my constituents’ disappointment that the Government have decided not to give these legislative changes the name “Josh’s law”. I have already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracey’s campaign has played in bringing about these changes. That sentiment is reflected in the fact that many Members across this House already recognise it as Josh’s law, noting Tracey’s years of campaigning for these changes in Josh’s memory. Baroness Levitt KC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said in the other place last week that this Government listen and want to get things right. I truly welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to Tracey, and have introduced amendments for which she has campaigned for more than seven years, but they have not got this completely right. In the eyes of my constituents, to truly honour Tracey’s work—not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but the tireless support that she has provided to victims through her charity—this change in legislation should be called Josh’s law. I understand the Government’s position is that “this decision reflects a wider shift away from the Government naming legislation or amendments after individuals”. However, that is inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I will refer to just one example. Last week, a Minister referred to “Benedict’s law” at the Dispatch Box. That legislation was passed only last month. That highlights that the move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. I ask the Minister to reflect on that at the Dispatch Box. Together, Lords amendments 5C and 6B represent a positive shift in the way that the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims. I hope that Tracey is incredibly proud of the fact that, by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action, she has helped to shift more focus back to the impact on, and rights of, victims. For that reason, and in Josh Hanson’s memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support Lords amendments 5C and 6B.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. There are issues with people who rely on super off-peak tickets, particularly at the weekends. Contactless has been introduced to Harlington in Mid Bedfordshire. It is valuable for commuters, but there are families who rely on the super off-peak fares, particularly at the weekends, who are now paying more for their travel at a time when they are hearing from the Government that rail fares are being frozen. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for the Government to reconsider the technology that they are using to allow more flexibility in ticketing through the contactless system?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform: Integrated Retirement Communities · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of planned reforms to leasehold on integrated retirement communities.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform: Integrated Retirement Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Wixams retirement village in Mid Bedfordshire is a wonderful, integrated retirement community, but I understand from the sector and the industry that that business model is under threat from the Government’s leasehold reforms. Given the important role that these communities can play in reducing social care costs for our local authorities, and the fantastic option they represent for older constituents, will the Minister commit to look again at the specific impacts of leasehold reform on the integrated retirement sector, particularly to give stability and predictability to investors so that they can invest in future schemes?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Is it worth emphasising that the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, which took £100 billion off the cost of driving? That is an example of taxes that we cut over those 14 years. In contrast, this Government have increased taxes by £66 billion in the past two years. Is it not outrageous?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thought I would intervene to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. Is he arguing for an amnesty here in the UK? What does he think British citizens would think of such an amnesty? Does he believe that that would be fair or unfair?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. That is clearly a back door to Britain, and we need to close it. Our public sector is dependent on a huge number of worker visas, while we debate—even today, in the Chamber —record youth unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we need to get those young people into work rather than relying on importing labour. Perhaps more worrying are the huge gaps in fairly basic compliance data that I uncovered through my questions to the Home Office. Responses to many of my questions indicate that there is a lack of robust data in the Home Office, or that data might be available but producing an answer is simply too expensive. In either case, without robust and easily accessible data in the Home Office, I and my constituents are concerned that our legal migration system is effectively unenforceable. Britain’s immigration system is not working for the British people. It is time that changed. As we continue to shape a new immigration system over the coming months and years, I hope the Minister will consider the recommendations in my report, which I have shared with Members and might well be in his inbox. I am more than happy to meet him to go through the recommendations if that would be of any use to the Government. My constituents want this Government—any Government, in fact—to end the loopholes, close the back doors to Britain and build an immigration system that works for British citizens.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. Immigration is one of the defining issues of contemporary politics. Polls regularly show that it is one of the most important issues for the public. Much like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I am told by my constituents that they are fed up with a system that seems to work for absolutely nobody. I send surveys to villages on a monthly basis, and regularly more than 80% of those who return the surveys tell me that this issue is important to them and we need to fix the immigration system. The Government’s attempts to reform the system are welcome. I encourage them to be ambitious. This is not about chasing Reform, as has been suggested by Members today; it is about focusing on an issue that matters deeply, certainly to my constituents. Earlier this month, I published a short report, “Backdoors to Britain”, which sets out 30 recommendations for strengthening our legal migration system. It comes after months of work and hundreds of written questions to the Home Office—I must apologise for pestering Home Office Ministers with them—which uncovered some alarming truths. Nearly 17,000 micro-companies with five or fewer employees are eligible to sponsor visas, but there seems to be no data on how many people they have sponsored. There is a clear commercial incentive for our universities to undercut our legal migration system in exercising their power to conduct their own English language testing at the start of study. Completion of a degree, regardless of what it is in or where the individual has come from, itself acts as proof of English language competency for future applications to the Home Office. Thousands of visa holders come through hard-to-enforce routes with minimal financial requirements. Two examples that I focused on in the report are religious and charity visa routes. We are operating a system where it is easier for someone to bring their non-British spouse to the UK if they are an immigrant than if they are a British citizen. I do not think that is fair to hard-working British citizens who want to bring their non-British spouse to the UK.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said: “There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.” I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Consular Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I have a constituent who has a 16-year-old daughter in Dubai seeking repatriation to the UK. May I put on the record my thanks to the officials for all the work they are doing? I have heard the Minister today say that the advice now is not to travel by land from Dubai to Oman, but my constituent, as of this morning, is very concerned for the safety of her daughter, who has been told to travel the 400 km to Oman to catch a repatriation flight without consular assistance. It sounds like the advice may have changed recently. Please can the Minister look into this, particularly to ensure that UK minors who are trapped in the region are provided with the right consular support, so that they can transit safely to Oman to catch those repatriation flights?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Visa Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  8. What guidance his Department issues on civil service sponsorship of visas.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Visa Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of public sector bodies, including a number of Departments and arm’s length bodies, are registered to sponsored visas, as the Minister will know. Does she agree that the public sector should lead from the front and sponsor visas by exception only in the cases of hiring truly world-class talent? Can she confirm whether all Departments and arm’s length bodies are complying with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I do join my hon Friend in asking the Minister to respond to that specific point in summing up. I know many MPs who represent rural communities have concerns about the fairer funding formula. In fact, it is not fair, particularly for rural communities. It would be helpful if the Minister were to reflect on that in his speech. I would like the Minister to give serious consideration to amending the Government’s plans on neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods in urban communities can likely afford to be larger. The relative impact of that in many urban communities will be minimal. However, in rural areas, we need neighbourhoods in the region of 10,000 not 50,000, so that people living in small rural towns such as Flitwick and Ampthill in my constituency do not have to leave their towns to access “neighbourhood health services” and so that people living in villages large and small only have to travel to the next village over and not to a big town many miles away. My concern over the Government’s plans for healthcare in rural areas does not end there. In Bedfordshire, we have recently seen our integrated care board—initially serving Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and central Bedfordshire—absorbed into a huge conglomerate ICB covering Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and Milton Keynes. That is an area of around 3.5 million people. It is hard to see that the new ICB will be able to give the level of attention to people in our rural communities that they need and deserve. In Wixams, a new town being built in my constituency, a GP surgery has long been promised. It was promised when shovels first went into the ground in 2007, and it has been promised ever since, but the empty field remains, waiting for a building and some doctors. Wixams now has roughly 5,000 residents, and it made up about 0.4% of the population of the previous ICB area. It needs its promised GP surgery, but residents have found it incredibly difficult to get action from the ICB. Under the Government’s new ICB arrangements, Wixams’ residents represent just 0.1% of the ICB’s population. It seems obvious to me that an already small but growing community that needs healthcare services will find that this centralisation of leadership structures will make it even harder for them to get the healthcare they need. To give credit where credit is due, the new ICB leadership have been very responsive to my representations on Wixams. After nearly two decades of delay, it feels like we are finally making some progress, together with the Mayor of Bedford and the hard work and commitment of local councillors Graeme Coombes, Marc Frost and Andrea Spice—all of whom I thank for their hard work. However, the point remains the same: when the area covered by ICBs is made bigger, the influence of our smaller rural communities and their healthcare needs becomes smaller. What the Government are doing in Bedfordshire is in no way an isolated incident. I understand that the 42 ICBs that existed before will be reduced to just 26 super-ICBs once the Government’s process finishes. That means thousands of rural communities across England will have less control over their local healthcare overnight, and it was confirmed almost in the same breath as the Government’s plans to bring healthcare closer to communities. That is particularly short-sighted when put against the Government’s plans for mayors. The Government have previously spoken of their desire to line up the boundaries of mayoral areas and integrated boards. Even as part of the 10-year health plan, they stated that their aim is that: “integrated care boards should be coterminous with strategic authorities wherever feasibly possible.” What a fantastic idea. Doing so would give proper political accountability to integrated care boards. It would mean that the rural village has a proper elected voice at the table when decisions about the future of healthcare are being made, and a representative that they could hold accountable at the ballot box if their local healthcare needs were left wanting. That is exactly what rural communities need to ensure they get the healthcare they deserve. The proposals, like so many others, seem to have been put back on the shelf and watered down. Now ICBs will be coterminous with lots of strategic authorities. In Bedfordshire, we are to be forced to have a mayor covering Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes and central Bedfordshire. Our new ICB would therefore be covered by three mayors, including a mayor for Hertfordshire and a mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. That dilutes the political pressure our mayor can bring and the impact that rural Bedfordshire communities covered by that mayor can reasonably have. If the Government change course back to the sensible idea of having an ICB and a strategic authority be coterminous, that will have been a whole lot of money wasted in two needless restructurings that could have gone into more doctors and nurses. It makes absolutely no sense—we need more doctors and nurses. In Bedfordshire, in the decade since 2016, we now have 18% more patients per fully qualified GP. That reflects the reality that in that same decade, our rural communities have been targeted for more and more development—a point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). In central Bedfordshire alone, more than 20,000 houses have been built in that period, with many more in Luton, Milton Keynes and Bedford, including significant build-out in Wixams, as I mentioned earlier. There is barely a village in Mid Bedfordshire that has not been expanded significantly over the past decade. We expect to see many thousands more built in the coming years, including potential new towns at Tempsford and expansions east of Milton Keynes. The old argument for healthcare with development no longer works. The argument would go, “Build a large development or new settlement. Give up a bit of what makes your rural community special, and in return you’ll get the new GP surgery or healthcare hub. You’ll get the infrastructure your community needs”. That just does not happen anymore. Now we get the houses, but the field where the GP surgery was promised remains empty, just as it has for two decades in Wixams. The same argument has been made for the Government’s flagship new towns: build a big new town from scratch and it will come with the right infrastructure. However, the Department of Health and Social Care has not been able to confirm to me that additional funding will be provided for GP surgeries, and there does not appear to be future funding provided from the Treasury. That leaves open the prospect that GP surgeries in new towns will be funded at the expense of new GP surgeries in areas such as Wixams and other rural communities across the country, which have been waiting far too long. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me on that point specifically. The overall point is clear: where rural communities see development, they need infrastructure to cope with it. That is common sense; it is simple, and it is what our constituents want to see. They need to see that infrastructure arrive before the houses are occupied, and not for the burden on overstretched existing infrastructure to be relieved at some indeterminate point in the future. It has been proposed a few times in this Session, but I fundamentally believe something must be done to allow councils and ICBs to benefit from developer contributions from the day that planning permission is granted, not as development is happening. That could be achieved by something as simple as the Government providing funding up front and reclaiming it from the developer via section 106. This is one of the biggest issues facing my residents. When the wait to see a GP soars because of a new housing estate next door, nobody wins. I know this is not confined solely to rural areas, but it is in rural areas where existing infrastructure is strained to capacity, and where a good proportion of the Government’s 1.5 million homes are expected to be built. I will bring my remarks to a close, and I look forward to hearing the views of others in this debate. There are particular challenges for rural communities in accessing healthcare. For too long the approach has been to centralise care in larger and larger towns, and in doing so take it away from villages and small towns. The Government’s move to centralise local healthcare decision making over much bigger areas risks leaving rural residents further behind. The planned shift to a neighbourhood health service is welcome, but it must be a truly neighbourhood-based service. While a neighbourhood of 50,000 people might make sense in our big towns and cities, it risks leaving our rural small towns and villages out in the cold, served only as a bit on the edge of a larger urban area. Equally, as services move more and more online, consideration must be given to the challenges in rural communities that cannot get good broadband or wi-fi, for reasons beyond their control. Finally, we must ensure that development in rural areas comes with the local healthcare infrastructure that we know communities need. For too long, that has not happened, and communities such as mine in Mid Bedfordshire have paid the price.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady front-runs entirely a point I will make later, and I thank her for doing so. Unfortunately, that early optimism about neighbourhood healthcare was somewhat tempered by a response I received to a written question, indicating that the Government expect neighbourhoods to have a geography of around 50,000 people. I am afraid that that will do nothing for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It will mean either that rural communities on the edge of urban catchments will be split up and served by “neighbourhood” health hubs in nearby major settlements, which will likely be Hitchin, Bedford, Luton or Milton Keynes, or that one rural “neighbourhood” will cover the vast majority of rural communities, meaning that constituents will have to travel to a central location to access the services that they need. In either case, that is what already happens now. People in rural communities can only get to healthcare services in big towns that are often a distance away. They deserve better than to be viewed as the hinterland of larger urban areas. They deserve a neighbourhood health service designed not as a one-size-fits-all solution, but as genuinely local to their needs. I appreciate that funding is not unlimited and that tough choices need to be made, but those tough choices always seem to result in rural communities losing out when it comes to access to healthcare.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered healthcare in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I hope that this debate can be a constructive discussion of the particular challenges that rural communities face in accessing healthcare. In that spirit, I will open the debate by saying some things that I hope no one will find controversial. Rural communities are bigger and further apart than urban ones and have fewer people in a wider area, which makes the delivery of basic services much harder than in major conurbations. The time and money lost to travel is higher because the distance between places is larger, and it is more challenging to recruit and retain staff in public services such as healthcare. Accessing online support—often seen as a silver bullet for the future of healthcare—can be challenging in rural areas where high-quality broadband and mobile signal have not yet arrived. All that means that securing equal access to healthcare in rural areas as in urban areas is more challenging and expensive, which has practical implications. In the Health Secretary’s constituency of Ilford North, there are 20 main GP surgeries. In my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, there are just nine. The age of the village doctor is gone. When my constituents heard of the plans for a neighbourhood health service, with a neighbourhood health centre, within the Government’s 10-year health plan, there was some optimism that that age might return, even if not necessarily in the same way as before. In principle, neighbourhood health centres are absolutely the right step. They are a way to empower people to get the healthcare that they need on their doorstep and to keep them out hospitals, which could then focus on those who need the most specialised care.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I know Lyneham quite well; it is a beautiful part of the world—although of course, Mid Bedfordshire is far more beautiful. I have to agree with the hon. Lady. The situation is deeply concerning for those in rural communities who are struggling to access GPs, and, given the growth and development in our communities, access is becoming much more difficult as the years roll on.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I shall speed through, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for summing up and covering an awful lot of ground—I am certainly grateful for that. He gave a lot of additional information, so I am sure he will forgive me if I go back to Hansard to look through it and follow up with a letter if anything is unclear. It has been a wide-ranging debate and there was a lot to cover. I thank all hon. Members for standing up for their communities, putting rural communities on the Government’s agenda and making sure that they get the healthcare services they deserve.

• 3 Mar 2026 · US Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions she has had with her US counterpart on tariffs.

• 3 Mar 2026 · US Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. My constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, want a system that works, that is swift and that is safe. The delays coincide with rising licensing costs, meaning that responsible, law-abiding certificate holders are paying more while receiving a poorer service. That is not sustainable, and any reform must ensure that those who follow the law are not unfairly penalised by the overstretched system. Crucially, merging regimes would not address the real vulnerability: the absence of real-time verification. I would be grateful if the Minister in her summing up could assure us that she understands that distinction and will take on those views as she moves forward with the legislative proposals. Across Bedfordshire, more than 1,000 residents, including nearly 300 in Mid Bedfordshire alone, have signed the national petition calling for section 1 and section 2 licensing to remain separate. Their message is clear: we must focus reforms on the real risks, not on measures that burden those who already comply with the law. A modern verification system will improve public safety; a structural merger of shotgun and firearms licences will not. I want to put on record my thanks to Bedfordshire police for their professionalism, insight and commitment to preventing further loss of life, and for the compassion they have shown to the Prosper family and the wider community. Their insight into the system’s shortcomings must shape the reforms that follow—we must empower them, not encumber them. Can the Home Office Minister now set out the precise timetable for delivering real-time verification, what interim safeguards will be put in place before 2027, and how both technological and legislative reforms will be accelerated? Our objective must be to ensure that what happened in Bedfordshire can never happen again. We owe that to the Prosper family, every family in the county and every community in the country—but we also owe it to the responsible shooting community to ensure that regulation is proportionate and supportive, rather than a block to their participation in country sports, conservation and stewardship. Before I conclude—I should have said this up front—I declare an interest: I have worked closely with BASC on this issue and I have been on a deer management course with BASC to improve my knowledge of firearms. I am not a firearms licence holder, but I have in the past held shotgun licences.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  While we are on the topic of Bedfordshire, will the Minister reflect on the lessons that have been learned from the Prosper case? I went into it in some detail. It is of concern to not only my constituents but constituents in Luton—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is here—so I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on it. In particular, what can be done to improve controls on the secondary market and the onward sale of guns?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing what has been a really balanced and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister has found it useful and will take lots of useful comments from it as the Government move forward with their plans. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on firearms licensing and the reforms we need to strengthen public safety while retaining the trust of responsible shooting communities. I begin with a case that has been referred to by hon. Members in this debate: the tragic Prosper case in Bedfordshire, which revealed serious vulnerabilities in our current licensing system. An individual, Nicholas Prosper, obtained a shotgun using a highly convincing forged certificate, which appeared legitimate to a lawful vendor. On the following day, he went on to commit a triple murder within his own family. That was on my doorstep in north Luton. Police later confirmed that he had also planned an attack on a local school, prevented only through the swift actions of Bedfordshire’s officers. Just last week I again met with a member of the extended Prosper family—someone whose life has been utterly shaken by this tragedy. Listening to their grief, their unanswered questions and their determination that no other family should ever endure such devastation has shaped my contribution to this debate. It took courage for them to speak out and to speak to me about something so profoundly painful; I am grateful, and I am hopeful that their experience will help drive the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. For that family and for our wider community, change must be about preventing real, life-altering harm and ensuring that the system designed to keep people safe cannot be exploited again. It is important to acknowledge that that case was not an isolated vulnerability. There has been at least one further attempt to use a similar forged certificate; fortunately, it was spotted by a vigilant registered firearms dealer, whose professionalism prevented a potentially catastrophic situation. However, we cannot depend on vigilance and instinct alone—public safety must rest on systems, not luck. At the centre of this issue lies the national firearms licensing management system. It is an outdated platform, unable to provide real-time certificate validation and no longer fit for the demands placed upon it. The Home Office is now tendering for its replacement, which is expected in mid-2027. Crucially, the new system will introduce real-time online certificate verification, akin, in my mind, to the MOT checking service that people are familiar with, and is strongly supported by the police, licensing experts and responsible shooting organisations. The replacement platform will enable wider modernisation, new digital licensing formats, stronger anti-fraud measures and a public portal allowing certificate holders to update basic information themselves. Those changes will reduce pressure on police forces, improve data accuracy and support a move to a more efficient and secure licensing environment. Serious concerns remain in the interim, however. The seven-day review mechanism is helpful, but it cannot eliminate the risks exposed in Bedfordshire and across the country. If a firearm is transferred before police notification, there is a dangerous window in which harm can occur. Bedfordshire police made clear to me in our interactions that the system must be capable of validating a certificate before the transfer proceeds, in order to make the secondary market much safer, and I agree. Some have suggested that the solution lies in a far more radical structural change: merging the section 2 shotgun licensing regime with the stricter section 1 system used for rifles and higher-powered firearms. I understand why people reach for a radical change in the wake of tragedy—it happens after every tragedy, and we have the strictest gun laws in the world as a result. Constituents understandably want reassurance and decisive action to ensure it never happens again, but the evidence simply does not support the approach being proposed by Government, for all the reasons explained by hon. Members here today. Shooting organisations and licensing specialists tell me that merging section 1 and 2 would not materially improve public safety. Both regimes already require rigorous background checks, suitability assessments and medical scrutiny. Tragedies have arisen from failures in the system, outdated technology and administrative gaps, not from the distinction between certificate types. A merger would generate significant unintended consequences: increased strain on already overstretched police licensing teams, slower processing times, higher costs for responsible shotgun owners, and damage to rural economies, game management and conservation work. At the same time, I must highlight the unacceptable licensing delays that residents and shooting organisations consistently report—delays that are particularly acute in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which falls under the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire firearms licensing unit. That unit is now formally recognised as the worst performing in the country: some applicants are waiting up to two years for renewals or grants, placing livelihoods, rural businesses, conservation activity and community clubs under real pressure.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned the potential introduction of the lynx as an apex predator, but active deer management is already under way in my constituency through culling. Do the Government have a preference on culling versus introducing an apex predator, or a combination of the two? What thought are the Government giving to deer management?