Firearms Licensing

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate in such a balanced manner. I also thank the 445 petitioners of Glastonbury and Somerton.

Gun controls should be strengthened only when there is a clear necessity to protect public safety. We Liberal Democrats share concerns that any changes to firearms licensing, including the reclassification of shotguns, must be evidence-based and go hand in hand with the appropriate support. The Health and Safety Executive suggests that intervention is required only when the risk has reached one death per 1 million of the population. In the UK, the average rate of homicide using legally held firearms stands at one per 15 million people. That is not to say that any death is not a tragedy, but what it does show is that we already have one of the most robust firearms licensing systems in the world.

However, balancing responsible gun ownership with public safety and public perception is a delicate task. The Liberal Democrats stand opposed to the Government’s proposal, as the current evidence indicates that there is no need to merge section 2 and section 1 licences. Both licences already require rigorous and identical health and safety checks. However, the system must be sufficiently resourced, and currently it is not. The policy poses a real risk to rural communities, both culturally and economically, so I would welcome the Minister’s feedback on what evidence the Government hold that indicates that individuals who own more than one gun are more likely to commit more crimes, and on how the proposed changes will deliver actual improvements to public safety.

Last week, I held an informative roundtable discussion in Street in my constituency, with more than 20 stakeholders from the shooting industry. The key feedback from that group was that the merger is ideological, and that it is a solution in search of a problem. One attendee, Steve—the owner of Ivythorn Sporting in Street, which specialises in firearms—reiterated that his primary responsibility, above being a gun dealer, is to protect public safety. He is acutely aware of his responsibility and will sell guns only to those he deems fit, with the correct paperwork. Like many gun dealers, Steve feels that he is just as effective at spotting fake licences as the licensing authorities, because officers in those authorities are given very little training.

As we have heard, shooting is a vital part of the rural economy, contributing over £3.3 billion annually and leading to £9.3 billion in wider economic activity, supporting 67,000 full-time jobs, and investing £500 million into conservation efforts every year. It is highly likely that increasing barriers to obtaining a firearms licence will drive people out of shooting. It has been estimated that this could lose the economy over £1 billion and cost more than 20,000 jobs in rural areas.

For farmers, making shotguns subject to more stringent section 1 licensing controls, particularly in relation to the location, use and purchase of ammunition, would eliminate the flexibility that they require to undertake effective pest control. Cameron, the farm manager at The Newt in Somerset, told me that he currently has multiple gun users active on his farm estate. In future, if he is required to monitor this and keep a record, he said that it is very likely that he would revoke those permissions. That would impact pest control on his estate and businesses whose job is to control pests. In addition, for many farmers operating under increased economic pressure, diversification into game or clay pigeon shooting can sometimes be the only option to keep their farm business viable.

I have also spoken to Andy, who is the founder of Avalon Guns Ltd. in Street. He sells thousands of shotguns and rifles every year, and has built a successful business from the ground up since opening in 1983. He told me that this policy would simply devastate his business and the UK gun trade, because 90% of UK gun sales are of shotguns, and the proposed merger would decimate demand and force licensed gun shops across the country to close for good.

Although the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Government’s consultation on this policy, there is much frustration across the industry, because the consultation on the merger was expected before Christmas. Can the Minister provide some clarity today about when the consultation will be forthcoming and further details about what will be considered in the Government’s intended policy? The wait is fuelling great uncertainty within the sector. It is affecting future planning and the viability of many rural businesses.

I turn to sport, because the merger risks damaging the sporting pathway that has underpinned British shooting successes. Clay pigeon shooting is often the entry point for young people taking up shooting as a competitive sport, providing a safe and structured introduction to it. Shooters must hold a full section 1 licence and potentially formal membership of every club that they might visit. That would make it nigh-on impossible for shooters to qualify for professional events. Team GB won gold in the men’s trap event and silver in the women’s skeet event at the last Olympics in Paris. We should celebrate and nurture British shooting’s success and widen access to participation, not narrow it down.

I have also spoken to some enactors, such as Jane, from Montacute, who is a member of the English Civil War Society. This merger will significantly increase the costs of control for blank-firing, muzzle-led weapons, with black powder weapons requiring a separate certificate for use. The change will not only add to the costly administrative burden that enactors already face. Their society plays a key role in stimulating interest in our cultural past, but this policy risks losing enactors if they are not given the same exemption as those using theatrical guns.

Currently within the UK, responsibility for the issuing and implementation of firearms licences rests with the local police force’s firearms licensing department. As we have heard, each of the 43 licensing units operate with different standards for assessing and issuing licences.

At this point, I should declare an interest as a shotgun licence-holder—or indeed, I was until about a month ago, when my brother and I decided that we should give up our licences because we do not use them enough. I hold a licence in Somerset; my guns were kept in my brother’s gun cabinet on a farm two miles down the road in Dorset. It was such an administrative headache that he and I sadly decided, given the amount of use we got from them, to give up our licences.

That just proves how difficult things can be, even with some very simple elements. This proposed merger, while well intentioned, risks adding significant costs, complexities and delays to an already overstretched and underfunded system. Under the proposal, those wishing to use or own a shotgun would be required to go through the same application processes as a rifle owner. Police firearms licensing departments would be required to carry out more stringent checks on potential shotgun owners, necessitating land inspections, enforcing specific restrictions on where and when a gun can be used, and requiring a justification for possessing specific firearms.

The merger will add enormous administrative pressure to police forces, which are already overwhelmed by the current system. Over a quarter of forces take more than a year to process applications, and some take up to three years. For example, in the second quarter of 2025, Avon and Somerset police completed 99% of its applications within four months; however, Cambridgeshire police was able to process only 37% of its applications during the same period.

Rural police forces, which are responsible for areas with the highest level of gun ownership, will now face a potential fourfold increase in workload, with no corresponding uplift in resources. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of the scale of the additional workload that police forces will face because of the proposal? Currently, Avon and Somerset police’s firearms licensing department is not able to take telephone enquiries due to its unmanageable workload. Without the additional resource that the Home Office proposals will require, it will simply not be able to provide a viable service.

In addition, the current process is archaic, bureaucratic and reliant on a paper-based system. It is simply not fit for purpose, and it is certainly not fit for the future. If driving licences—although, as we have heard, they are probably not the best example—and passports can be processed digitally, surely it would be more efficient for gun licences to be issued in that way, especially when we consider the 138% increase in gun licence fees brought in last February. The fee hike was implemented to help to tackle processing inefficiencies across all departments, but concerningly, less than half of all forces have used the additional resources to improve their processing timeframes.

Those are the reasons why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a centralised national firearms agency that would shift to a digital processing system, standardise fees, reduce wait times, and ensure that safeguards, such as medical markers, are implemented effectively and consistently. Such a reform to gun licensing authorities would remove the administrative burden crippling police licensing departments, allowing the police to focus on their primary role of frontline community policing.

Many across the industry feel that the Government are trying to find a solution to a problem that the evidence suggests does not need addressing. Stakeholders argue that the current system would work if it was enforced and resourced properly, rather than there being a gap in the current law. Firearms licensing must protect public safety while remaining fair, workable and proportionate for those who hold licences responsibly and lawfully.