Firearms Licensing

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough]

That was excellently put by my hon. Friend. All of us who had the pleasure of spending time with Christopher send our heartfelt condolences to his family, because he was, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a gent.

We also need to ensure that we respond to the risk, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our laws reflect the reality of the world that we live in today, not the world as it was 60 years ago.

Let me begin by setting out clearly where we are. In the United Kingdom, there are about half a million gun owners—they are roughly 1% of the population—and about 90% use their firearms for leisure, for sport or for legitimate countryside management. The overwhelming majority of owners are responsible. The National Crime Agency has said that firearms certificate holders are highly unlikely to be involved in serious and organised crime. That important fact deserves to be stated clearly in this House.

The shooting sector is also economically significant. It contributes £3.3 billion a year in gross value added to the UK economy, generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports an estimated 67,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Those jobs are not abstract; they are jobs in rural pubs, hotels, small family-run retailers, manufacturing, tourism, land management and pest control. They are jobs that sustain rural communities and working people across our country. In my constituency of South Norfolk and those of many across the House, the leisure sector is not a lifestyle choice, but the backbone of the local economy. We must always be mindful that decisions taken in Westminster have real-world consequences in such communities.

At the same time, our legislative framework is undeniably outdated. Much of it dates back to the 1960s and, while amendments made since then, in particular after tragedies such as Dunblane, have strengthened safety, the overall framework has evolved in a piecemeal way. Such reforms, including the ban on handguns, were necessary and proportionate responses to unimaginable horror. They reflected the will of the public and the duty of Parliament to act in the interests of safety. I do not believe that anyone serious about public safety would suggest reversing those protections, but it is equally true that legislation cannot stand still, because the world does not.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making some important points, but did he note that the Law Commission, in its 2015 report on firearms, did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system? He references the points made to do with previous incidents, but the Law Commission was very clear in its 2015 recommendations to the Government of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. More than 121,000 people have signed the petition, and I believe it has been signed more quickly than any petition the Committee has received for a long period of time.

I think we will all agree that this has been a very worthy debate. I have engaged my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley on this important issue: most recently, BASC kindly invited me to speak at an event at Ilkley rugby club. Many farmers, land managers, pest controllers and those participating in game shoots and clay pigeon shoots turned up to express their concern about the Government’s aspiration to merge section 1 and section 2 licences under the Firearms Act 1968.

It is widely recognised that firearms licensing is effective at protecting public safety, and there is no evidence that moving section 2 to section 1 will improve that protection. I think it is right to look at the data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) rightly went into. Of course, any death is horrendous, but we know from Home Office data that homicides committed with legally held firearms have averaged about 3.8 deaths per year for the past decade—or, to put that in context, around one for every 15 million of the UK population. Meanwhile, an average of 280 people die each year from knives, and 32 people died in 2023 alone from handling fireworks.

I raise those points because it is important to understand that, despite the coroner’s report into the deaths in Plymouth and the level of reasoning he came out with, he did not conclude by recommending the merging of sections 2 and 1. Therefore, I ask the Minister why this consultation is even being brought before the public and why the Government want to pursue this narrative, despite the data held by the Home Office and despite this proposal not being a recommendation of the coroner.

I raise the point about fireworks because, as a member of the Petitions Committee, I know that we have had two petition debates about them in this Chamber in the last 12 months alone, which were attended by many Members of Parliament. It has been an ongoing request that Governments of the day bring out tougher regulations on fireworks, yet nothing has been forthcoming from this Government. However, here we are in another petition debate, on a consultation that has not been requested by the wider community or by those who hold firearms, and that consultation is forthcoming.

We all know that, despite the regular tightening of controls on firearms since the 1968 Act, there has been no correlation between the rate of deaths from firearms and increased controls. I therefore advocate, as the coroner did in the Plymouth deaths, that we focus on all the other aspirations that have been rightly expressed, around tightening the existing control mechanisms, rather than on merging sections 2 and 1. I also note, as I indicated in an intervention earlier, that the Law Commission’s 2015 report on firearms law did not recommend moving section 2 into section 1. Therefore, I again ask the Minister why this consultation is coming forward.

It is important to look at the inefficiency we are experiencing across the country in the way that firearms licensing departments are working. There are 43 licensing authorities, and the vast majority are operating inefficiently. A quarter are taking more than a year to process grant applications, and some are taking well over three years. Many of those who want to renew their applications or make them in the first place are suffering delay. Processing applications under section 1 for rifles involves more checks and more costs, so this proposal will inevitably place a greater burden on those 43 authorities. Why, therefore, are we going forward with it despite it not being requested?

I also want to look at the impact on the wider shooting community. Shooting alone is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy. It generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports 67,000 jobs. Those jobs are not limited to licence holders: there is also the farming community; those carrying out pest control; gun shops; shooting grounds, instructors and coaches; ammunition, firearms and accessory manufacturers; country clothing; pubs, hotels and the hospitality sector; farms and estates; game dealers and processors; vets; feed merchants; agricultural services; and event staff. All of those will be negatively impacted if the Government pursue their agenda. Therefore, I urge them not to pursue this narrative.

In my view, this issue is actually about politics. Under this Government, firearms licensing costs have increased by 138%. We have seen the Government ignore the scientific information put to them about how our moorland is controlled, and ban the controlled burning of heather. We have seen them attack other country pursuits, and we have seen the family farm tax and other negative impacts on our wider farming community. I therefore think the Government are actually pursuing our rural economy in a negative way.

To conclude, I ask the Government why we are in this scenario. I have mentioned the data and the fact that we have had request after request to bring out tougher regulation on fireworks, yet we see nothing from the Government. Meanwhile, we are in a scenario where the courts, the Law Commission and coroners have specifically not put forward this recommendation, yet we are debating it in the House and a consultation is forthcoming. I would like to understand from the Minister why we are even having this conversation about the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[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.