Firearms Licensing

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate in such an effective and measured way. Some 292 of my constituents signed the petition, and I thank all those who have contacted me in recent weeks to relay and explain their concerns about the proposed merger of the section 1 and section 2 firearms licences. A number of hon. Members have already outlined those concerns, so I will try not to repeat them, other than to summarise them. The proposed changes, although perhaps well intentioned, are disproportionate and will not realise the Government’s stated objective.

I will begin with the concerns about the proportionality of the changes. Many of my constituents pointed out that many of the safety checks in the current regime are similar for both section 1 and section 2 applications, including medical and background checks. There are very good reasons for those checks. Every constituent who has written to me or visited me in surgeries recently has said that they support tight gun controls. They are proud of the fact that this country has a very good record on firearms regulation, but they do have questions of the Government about the proposed changes, which I shall relay to the Minister. As far as they can see it, the changes and the proposed merger would not improve safety by much for the public, not least because the suitability test—the core tenet of both section 1 and 2 applications—is already robust.

My constituents also wanted me to convey that, even if we were to agree that the proposed merger would enhance public safety, whether or not it would realise that objective would depend on the efficacy and resourcing of the system. They have been clear to me that the current system is already creaking under great pressure. Across England and Wales, there are 43 different police licensing units, each operating with slightly different standards. The inconsistency in the system has been described to me as a postcode lottery. Surely we can agree that we need a more standardised, nationally consistent approach to processing applications for firearm licences.

Perhaps most importantly, the capacity of the existing system would struggle to deal with the proposed changes. At present, I think there are more than 500,000 section 2 certificates. There are concerns that that number would reduce under these proposals, but even if we were to have only 250,000 certificates for what would currently be section 2 licences, it would still be more than double the number of section 1 licences at present. There are severe delays and units under pressure across the country, with significant inconsistencies in processing times—from 12 weeks to, at the worst, more than three years. Even if we were to agree that the merger was a good idea and would enhance public safety, can we be confident that it could be implemented, given the operational difficulties that the current system is shouldering?

Like many of my constituents, I argue that instead of the proposed merger of sections 1 and 2, we should look at the system itself. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the need for greater resourcing, which I very much support, but a bolder idea, which was presented by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and others, is a centralised national licensing body. It strikes me as eminently sensible that we should have a specialised, centralised body, much like the DVLA for motorists, to realise efficiencies of scale, introduce expertise and ensure a more effective system overall.

My other concern, if we proceed with these changes, is that an already overwhelmed system will find itself even more overwhelmed. Firearms applications, which our predecessors correctly deemed to carry more risk because of the greater lethality of the weapons, will inevitably be prioritised, so there are clear risks that what were section 2 applications will fall to the bottom of the pile. That means that many of my constituents—farmers and those involved in pest control—will find that they are facing even longer delays in securing the relevant licences so that they can operate and perform their crucial function in the rural economy.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about the DVLA is an interesting one. If I consider my casework load over the years, I would not necessarily hold up the DVLA as a model of the advantages of centralisation.

Are we not losing sight of the fact that, when Parliament legislated in the first instance for two different classifications, it did so for a reason? That reason, in essence, has not changed. There is a risk that, in pursuing something that is essentially procedural, we come away at the end of the day with worse outcomes, which are surely what matter to all those who care about the safety issue.

[Ben Lake]

I must concede that the DVLA was perhaps not the best of examples to cite. The right hon. Member is correct that the original Firearms Act—back in 1920, I believe—differentiated between the smooth barrel and the rifle for very good reasons. Others have touched upon that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) elaborated on the point about the differentiation of lethality and effective range. Those are very important points that surely remain salient and key if the objective of this exercise is to ensure public safety.

Leading on from that point, my concern is that, if we merge sections 1 and 2, we will have an already overwhelmed system where licence applications for less risky weapons fall to the bottom of the pile, with an impact on legal and lawful uses such as those in my constituency—whether for conservation, farming or sport—or, controversially, we might have a situation where the riskiest, most dangerous weapons also find themselves lost in an overwhelmed system, which is surely not what we want. That is one potential unintended consequence that we should be mindful about as legislators.

For those reasons, I should like to urge caution and impress upon the Government that we need to be mindful of many unintended consequences, and that, rather than looking to embark on this very significant change, we might be better off first looking at ways of making the current regime work better. I commend to the Minister the idea of a centralised body—not like the DVLA—that could free up police resources to tackle illegal firearms and ownership. That would represent a far better way forward and achieve what I think we all want, which is to improve public safety.