Firearms Licensing

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

That is absolutely right. I do not know the club in question, but that is the same point that many of my constituents and others have made as part of the debate on this proposal.

If the Government wish to improve public safety, I encourage them to accept the proposal for mandatory medical markers, which is backed by organisations such as BASC. They would ensure that medical concerns are identified as they arise, rather than waiting for licence renewal. That proposal has cross-party and industry support, yet the Government have rejected it. However well intentioned, the Government’s proposals would not improve public safety, but would simply harm our rural communities and the hundreds of thousands of people who use shotguns lawfully.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. We must have an eye, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said, for the overall lethality of the population of firearms. Will my hon. Friend reflect on whether we are in a “careful what you wish for” situation? I am a shotgun certificate holder and an owner of a shotgun. If I am forced to go through the procedure to effectively get a firearms licence, I am much more likely to acquire a firearm, so although the number of shotguns out there might fall, the number of rifles, and therefore the overall lethality of the population of firearms, might actually rise.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important that the Government and the civil servants supporting them consider the wider impacts of these changes if they are implemented. Firearms legislation has been crucial to keeping people safe and there are practical, workable measures that the Government could take to improve it, but this proposal is not one of them. It will make it harder for those who work in our rural communities to do their jobs. The Government must listen to the evidence, to those who have responded to the consultation and to the Members across the Chamber. I urge them to abandon these plans because they will not work and they will severely impact jobs, the economy and our rural way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), my constituency neighbour, on opening it in such a measured way, which I think has been noted by all of us.

I need to start by declaring my interests. I hold a firearm certificate and a shotgun licence. I believe that I am still a member of the Countryside Alliance; I have not checked recently, but it is very good at taking the direct debit. I also represent a rural community. That is not a formal declaration of interest, but it is why I am here today. In my constituency, there is, overwhelmingly, a mixture of bafflement and anger. People are baffled because they cannot see what problem the Government are trying to fix with this potential legislative change, and they are angry—very angry. I recognise that it may not be the Government’s intention and that we are talking about a consultation, so it is early stages, but this feels like another ignorant attack on rural communities, with no proper interest as to the adverse consequences caused.

We have heard many excellent speeches today, and I will do my best not to repeat the points that have already been made, but I want to start by acknowledging that this is a deeply emotive issue, because every death caused by a gun—or any other weapon, for that matter—is in itself a tragedy. However, we are legislators and it is our duty to put aside emotion, focus on the facts and take a rational approach, even if that can sometimes lead us to slightly uncomfortable and emotive responses, so let us try to do that.

It is the first principle of government, when considering curbing individual liberties, that the Government must have cause and that the benefit sought must significantly outweigh the damage caused as a result of the removal of liberty, so what is the issue that the Government are trying to deal with here? The quick answer is public safety, but how much crime has been committed by legal holders of shotguns? Of all crime, it is a vanishingly small percentage. In fact, 0.00006% of crime is undertaken by legal holders of shotguns. I am told that homicides with legally owned shotguns averaged 3.8 per annum over the last decade, so people have a significantly higher chance of winning the lottery than of being a victim of homicide with a legally held shotgun. It is about a one-in-15-million chance.

To put that in context, 50 people tragically lose their lives every year because of faulty cooking appliances and 40 lose their lives because of accidents with ladders. We are talking about an average of 3.8 people tragically losing their lives as a result of legally held shotguns, so that is the size of the prize: reducing a long-term average of 3.8 deaths per year—but to what? It will not be to zero, because any system will contain a remaining risk. Sensibly, we all recognise that no system would be 100% successful, other than a system that removed all shotguns from the public, and we know that even if the Government were successful at removing all shotguns, other forms of lethal weapon are readily available.

There are more than 200 deaths per annum as a result of knives. For as long as we like to cook food and eat it, knives will be available, so even if the Government were successful at reducing the number of fatalities because of legally held shotguns, it does not necessarily follow that there would be a reduction in the number of killings. We are talking, at best, about a partial reduction in the number of killings from a maximum of 3.8, and yet the potential cost of the proposals that the Government are considering is enormous.

We have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members that there would be a huge impact in the form of a need for increased police resources. People like me apply for a firearms licence, and at the moment about 3,700 of those are renewed each year, which places a significant administrative burden on our police forces. On average, 150,000 shotgun licences are renewed annually. Even if we look just at the economic cost of the application fee, that would amount to an additional cost of £7 million, and that is before the cost of the police resources. Many people will think that it is not worth the candle and will give up shooting because it is simply too onerous. Other Members have already talked about the potential loss of about 20,000 full-time equivalent jobs and a loss to the economy of getting on for £1 billion.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is giving us a fascinating perspective on the statistics, but if the Government were interested in reducing the overall harm from firearms, does he not think that there would be greater benefit from taking all the police effort that we acknowledge would go into the enforcement of this wider regime, and focusing it on those firearms that are more likely to be used in crime? If smuggled handguns, converted antiques or replicas, and blank-firing guns that are brought in illegally were enforced against, would it not have a bigger impact on harm than this measure? My hon. Friend has spoken to the tiny number of incidents involved.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend is of course right. I do not have the data—I am trying to stick with data in the argument I am constructing—but the principle he mentions is a sound one. If we focus our resources in the area where the risk is greatest, we are likely to have a better beneficial impact.

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

The Countryside Alliance estimates that the measures will have a huge impact on the value of shooting to the economy, with a loss of about £875 million. And for what gain? This is the difficult bit, because I am going to consider the value of a life. Of course, in one sense, every life is priceless, but in policy terms, we already attribute an economic value to life. In my other job as shadow Rail Minister, I asked the Office of Rail and Road to give me the economic cost of a saved life on the railways; the answer is £4 million. It is worth spending £4 million on a piece of infrastructure if, over the course of its use, it saves a life. That is the rule of thumb for rail. For road transport, it is actually much less than that.

I am not suggesting that every death has the same value economically, because as a society we would be prepared to pay a lot more to prevent a violent murder than even a tragedy on the railway. But that is the level of magnitude at which, in policy terms, we as legislators have decided the economic value of a life sits. However, with these measures, the Government appear to be proposing a change in the law that will have an impact of several hundred million pounds—getting on for £1 billion—in order to reduce the number of deaths from a maximum long-term average of 3.8 to some number less than that, but still well above zero.

On any rational basis, there is simply no argument that holds water that suggests the price of 20,000 jobs and an economic hit, particularly to the rural economy, of close to £1 billion, in order to save a percentage of 3.8 lives over the course of a year, is a credible policy position. I recognise that what I have said is deeply uncomfortable, because we are talking about real people who suffer from tragedies. I join everyone in my deepest sympathy for people who have been affected by this issue in their family, or among their friends, but as a legislator it is my duty to look beyond that. That is why I have set out the data—to help the Minister approach this issue in the right way.

I have said that my constituents are baffled, but they are also angry, because this feels like a tin-eared approach to the rural way of life. The measures fail to understand the community connections that bring rural communities together, and it feels like a Government who would propose them have no idea of who we are or how we live our lives. It feels like the Government do not understand and do not care—or perhaps they do, which would be even worse, but instead disapprove of our way of life. It feels like an attack on the rural way of life and economy without justification. The previous Conservative Government, as has been mentioned, did not consult on the proposed change to the law for a very good reason: it is a terrible idea.

--- 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—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Yes.

[Robbie Moore]

I am interested to understand why this consultation is before the public. It goes against the grain of the Law Commission’s 2015 report and the coroner’s report, which contained no such recommendation. Would the Minister also mind answering my question on fireworks? Fireworks are licensed, too, so why are the Government not willing to explore tougher fireworks regulation, given that in 2023 there were 35 deaths associated with firework usage?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Member will know, the Department for Business and Trade has the lead on fireworks. I have had a conversation with a colleague in the last couple of weeks about that exact point, but that speaks to the point I was making that we can do lots of things at different times. His question is a bit of what-aboutery, but the point about taking seriously the issues with fireworks, and the regime around them, is valid and of course I will take it away.

The hon. Member asked why we are consulting, which is a fair question. We feel a sense of responsibility to make sure that the system works as well as it could and should. I think that everybody would agree that if it needs to change, we need to change it.

A point was made about the Keyham shootings, and the senior coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. He concluded that a shotgun is no less lethal a weapon than a firearm if misused. The Independent Office for Police Conduct recommended, following its independent investigation, that the two should be aligned, and that legislation and necessarily related national guidance should be

“amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.”

Other reports have recommended the same, including one by the Scottish Affairs Committee—it was pointed out during the debate that, for obvious reasons, a lot of licences are granted in Scotland. We are looking at this, but that is not to say that we have made a decision. We are open-minded about what would be the right course.

So, on training, yes; on centralising, potentially—we are looking at that; and on improving the licensing system, definitely. The police have recently started producing monthly data on the time it takes for people to get their licence, which is a good way of ensuring that they are operating as they should.

[Ms Minns]

On the speed of licensing, I can recommend none more strongly than the example of Cumbria constabulary, which has really put its house in order over the last 18 months, since David Allen became the police, fire and crime commissioner for Cumbria. I urge others to apply its good practice in the rest of the country.

[Sarah Jones]

I am very happy to praise Dave Allen, of whom I am a big fan. My hon. Friend is right that there are big inconsistencies and that some forces are doing very well. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) pointed out, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire is particularly problematic, given the struggles that it has. The inspector highlighted that, and the thematic review will give us more data on that front.

[Blake Stephenson]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He may wish me to meet family members; if he thinks it appropriate and they want to, I am happy to do so. The onward sale of guns—the illegal market in guns—is a massive issue that we need to tackle, and indeed we are.

As many people have said, we are fortunate in this country that we have a very strict regime and do not have a very significant gun issue. The number of murders involving the use of illegal guns is coming down, but of course there is always more that we can do in this space. We work with the National Crime Agency, Border Force and police forces to look at these issues, and, again, the setting up of a national police service that can have more specialism in some of these areas will help us to do that. If the hon. Member would like me to have a meeting to learn more, I am very happy to do that.

We have not been idle since we came into government. There are always changes that we can make, and we have made a number of significant ones, including reissuing, in August 2025, the statutory guidance to chief officers of police on firearms licensing. That ensures that the police carry out robust and consistent checks on the suitability of those who hold or apply for a shotgun or firearms licence. I will not go into the other things we have done, but we have made other changes and are always open to ideas.

I should briefly say that medical markers are really important and are already working. We will keep under review whether to mandate, but we already have 98,000 active digital markers on patient GP records. In 2024-25, there were over 1,100 cases in which the GP notified the police of a medical concern. That is a good thing, but it is worrying that people who have mental health issues, or whatever it might be, and obviously need support are going to the GP and the GP has raised a marker. It shows how important the system is, but also how careful we need to be when licensing.

To conclude, I hear, I understand and I will continue to learn—I learned about geese today, which I did not know much about, and crofting. I cannot say I am an expert, but I absolutely understand the economic benefit and the need for the use of guns in this country. I want to make sure we have the best regime possible, and that is why we are conducting the consultation. I am very open to hearing more views and to learning more from hon. Members. We will publish the consultation in due course.