Firearms Licensing

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jerome Mayhew

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jerome Mayhew

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

When people have broken the law, and when it is safe and proportionate for them to do so, they should serve their sentences in the community. It is important for them to be seen to be paying back to the communities to whom they have caused harm. We are investing £93 million in community payback staff over the next three years so that we can increase the number of hours worked to a record-breaking 8 million a year.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Justice needs to be seen to be done, not just for victims but for the wider community, so that they can be confident that offenders are not getting away with it. Community payback projects allow for offenders to make reparations to the communities whom they have harmed. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will be working to expand such projects across the country?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right: people do want to see justice being done, in a visible way, in their communities. I hope that he saw some of the 300-odd gangs of offenders who delivered about 10,000 hours of community work across the country, particularly on environmental schemes, during the recent Keep Britain Tidy spring clean-up week. However, Members of Parliament can also play a part in this project. We do need to increase those hours to 8 million a year, and we need Members’ help in nominating schemes on which we can put offenders to work, so if Members feel like it, I ask them please to go online and look at the Ministry of Justice website. They can nominate a scheme, and we will send some people to do some cleaning up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jerome Mayhew

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The brilliant news on unemployment rates means that businesses in Broadland are crying out for staff. Bernard Matthews has been working with HMP Norwich to provide jobs for ex-offenders immediately on their release, and it tells me that there have been great results from that. Other local businesses have told me that they want to do the same, so what can the Government do to encourage such practices?

[Kit Malthouse]

At last, a Christmas story to warm the heart. I am sure that all those tucking into their Bernard Matthews turkey this Christmas will not only find it delicious and a celebration of their family, but recognise that they are playing their part in a better future for all those individuals who are working with Bernard Matthews, which is to be congratulated on its work. My hon. Friend is quite right that there is an enormous amount that can be done with the private sector to help get ex-offenders back on to the straight and narrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently held a summit with employers to do exactly that, and we will be building a network of business partnerships across the country where businesses and prison governors can sit down together and talk about how to get ex-offenders into employment in exactly the way that Bernard Matthews has done with remarkable success.