Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue.

In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response.

That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet?

In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record.

Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward for debate. I, like others, always try to be helpful in my contributions. At a meeting with key stakeholders, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation in Northern Ireland met the Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They routinely acknowledge that the Northern Ireland firearms licensing system, which includes medical checks, is one of the most robust systems—if not the most—in the world. It is clear there is no need for change there. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to liaise with shooting organisations such as the BASC and Countryside Alliance to get insight from their expertise? Could the Minister potentially look at the system in Northern Ireland as the catalyst that the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve?

[Helen Maguire]

It is interesting to hear that there is another system in Northern Ireland, and indeed, I urge the Minister to look at that and see whether it could be applicable here.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I should perhaps clarify for the House that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the critical reasons that medical markers are not yet compulsory—I entirely agree that they ought to be—is that some doctors do not want to do it because they think it will put them in a decision-making position on whether a person should have a shotgun or firearms certificate? In fact, that is not the case; the decision maker is the relevant constabulary, and, in law, the chief of that constabulary is ultimately responsible for the decision.

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. This is about safeguarding the public. There are many other examples of doctors having similar abilities to use this information.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Member has prompted the second point that I want to make. Doctors and other medics are perfectly happy to do medical checks on people in relation to driving licences. That is an issue of public safety. Why is there inconsistency in doing it for firearms?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree, and I will be coming on to that further in my speech. Let me be clear that this debate is in no way about firearm ownership—the Government are consulting on that separately, and that is its own debate. Today’s discussion is about how we can ensure that medical professionals have the information required to best support the individuals they serve.

Emma and her daughter Lettie Pattison, who lived in my constituency, were shot and killed by Emma’s husband almost three years ago, before he turned the gun on himself. Before his latest shotgun licence renewal, George Pattison had used an online doctor to receive a “significant amount” of propranolol between 2019 and 2021. However, despite his change in mental health, the online doctor was unaware of his firearms licence, and the medication was not disclosed to his GP, which meant that neither professional was able to intervene. If they had, maybe Emma would still be working at Epsom college and Lettie might have celebrated her 10th birthday this year.

Robert Needham killed his partner Kelly Fitzgibbons, and their children Ava, age four, and Lexi, age two, in West Sussex in 2020. In Needham’s case, as a result of changes to gun licence guidelines, a flag was initially inputted and then removed. A statement from Kelly’s family following the inquest into their deaths described the monitoring and sharing of information between police and medical professionals about Needham’s shotgun licence as a “shambles.”

Having corresponded with medical organisations, I recognise that balancing the need for patient-doctor confidentiality is paramount. In the first instance, the GP should always ask for the individual’s consent before contacting another authority, such as the police, about how the issues they are facing may impact their ability to safely possess a gun. However, doctors can break confidentiality when it is in the public interest. According to the British Medical Association, public interest is likely to be justified where it is essential to protect other people from risks of serious harm or death.

GPs also must already abide by several safeguarding protocols and laws. The Care Act 2014 sets out six key principles of safeguarding, including prevention, noting that it is sometimes possible to act before harm has come to an individual. With those existing guidelines, mandatory markers are not an attempt to reinvent the wheel; they are simply a way of flagging vital information that is key to the patients and public safety. The Royal College of General Practitioners considers it valuable to have those digital markers in place, and notes that software systems should develop, implement and secure the functionality of the markers in patient records. The college recommends that the Government work with the providers of GP systems to resolve this issue.

The BMA also supports medical markers. They told me that doctors have a professional responsibility to share information that might impact on the safety of someone holding firearms in the community, and we need effective systems to do so. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office welcomes the digital medical marker and recognises the work of bereaved families who have lobbied tirelessly to ensure that action is taken to prevent future harm and further loss of life. The British Association for Shooting Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, who have a combined membership of over 200,000 people, both support the introduction of mandatory medical markers.

June 2010, March 2020, August 2021, February 2023—these dates are etched in the memories of families torn apart by gun violence: each one a failure of the system; each one a life that could have been saved. The Government have a choice: they can listen to the families of victims, to medical professionals, gun owners and the organisations working to end violence, or they can continue to leave the door open to tragedy. The Liberal Democrats believe that mandatory medical markers are a proportionate evidence-based safeguard. They allow concerns to be flagged early if someone’s health changes, rather than waiting years until a licence renewal, and can save lives. So I ask the Minister today: will he finally release the data on how many GPs are using the markers and will he commit today to making them mandatory?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate, and I thank all the other Members who are here today for their well-argued, compelling, considered and sensible points. I will address those points as best I can in my response, then I will move on to address the shotgun issue near the end.

As we know, firearms licensing controls are crucial to minimise the risk of harm and to keep the public safe. Medical checks and the use of firearms markers are an important part of those controls. Although I understand why there are calls for such markers to be mandatory, the Government do not consider that to be necessary at this point, and I come on to the reasons why. It should be recognised that the decisions in all firearms application cases are taken by the relevant police force. Medical information provided by GPs is very important, but it is just one part of the information that is considered by the police.

Before I address the specific points that have been raised during the debate, I reassure Members and their constituents that work continues to make the firearms licensing system as robust as it can be. Although public safety is and will always be the priority, it is also right to acknowledge that the large majority of firearms licence holders—there are some in the Public Gallery today—do not cause any concern. The challenge is to have an effective system in place to identify individuals who might cause harm.

Of course, the tragedy at Epsom college in February 2023 shocked us all. In discussing these issues today, I know that we all have the victims of that crime—Emma Pattison and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie—and the victims of other such crimes well and truly at the forefront of our minds. The perpetrator at Epsom college was Emma’s husband; he was a licensed shotgun owner, who then killed himself. He had suffered from anxiety, but his GP and the police were unaware of that because he had sought treatment from an online doctor, as was explained earlier. He did not disclose that information when he applied for his certificate renewal.

The medical checks for firearms licensing have been significantly strengthened in recent years. Medical information for firearms licensing has been a requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, when the new guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. An applicant’s doctor must now provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health issues or drug or alcohol abuse, that the applicant has experienced. A firearms licence will not be granted without this information.

A digital firearms marker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted. This means that if a certificate holder has a relevant medical condition during the five years’ validity of the certificate, their GP can alert the police, who will then review whether that individual is still suitable to have a firearms licence, and—if necessary—revoke the licence. Initially, the marker was in the form of a paper marker on a person’s medical record. However, because of concerns that a paper marker could easily be overlooked by a busy GP, work has been done to replace it with a new digital firearms marker.

Use of the digital firearms marker is not a core health requirement for GPs and is not part of the GP contract, nor is it a legal requirement, but the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners support its use, and the BMA issues guidance to GPs about it. Therefore, any GP who fails to engage with the process would be going against the advice of their professional associations, as well as taking a significant risk.

The available data indicates that most GPs in England are applying the digital firearms marker as they are expected to. We have received very encouraging data from NHS England about how the marker is being used by doctors, and we continue to work with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to assess whether there are any regional variations that could signpost whether greater engagement between police and doctors at local level is needed in certain areas.

The data provided by NHS England gives figures for the number of active digital firearms markers applied by GP surgeries in each of the last three years, and—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[Mike Tapp]

And I will go through the data now, before the hon. Member intervenes and asks for it. If there are any gaps in it, I will welcome an intervention at the end, and I will take note and we can write back.

In 2022-23, 93,700 new digital markers were applied, in 2023-24 that figure was 85,650, and in the latest year for which data is available, 2024-25, 98,690 new digital markers were applied to medical records. Those are broadly the numbers we would expect when compared with the data for the number of firearms licence applications and renewals made each year.

We also have data on the number of cases where a GP has notified the police of a medical concern about a certificate holder following a review prompted by the digital marker. In 2022-23, 1,180 cases were referred by GPs to police forces as a result of the digital marker, in 2023-24 that figure was 1,040, and in 2024-25 it was 1,140. That data is also broadly where we would expect it to be when compared with the annual figures for revocations of licences by police forces, and it gives us confidence that GPs are using the digital firearms marker as it is designed to work.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I cannot comment directly on the data that he provided from his quick google—GPs may be qualified but not practising, and I would not want to jump to any conclusions—but that can certainly be taken away. It is the Government’s position that it is not necessary to make use of the firearms digital marker mandatory. If there was compelling evidence of systemic failure by GPs to engage with the digital marker, the case for mandatory requirement would be stronger, but that is not the picture painted by the available data. In fact, it shows that the digital marker is already being applied and used by most GPs.

[Helen Maguire]

I am listening intently to the Minister, but if he is saying that the number of people who have been referred to their GP with potential conditions and the number of markers are as expected, I cannot understand what difference it would make if the marker were mandatory. It seems as though it is sort of happening already, and if there were no additional cost to making it mandatory, then I struggle to understand why it is difficult for the Government to change their position.

[Mike Tapp]

We need to bear in mind that the governing bodies that oversee GPs are against this, given the potential for liability if a GP failed to disclose something to the police. I assure the hon. Member that the Home Office will keep our approach under review, as we do with all aspects of firearms licensing control, but we believe that the data available at this time shows that mandating is not necessary, and that the digital marker quite simply is being applied and used by most GPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

I am disappointed that the Minister will not be considering making use of the medical marker mandatory. I hope that he will go away and reconsider, particularly because, as many hon. Members have alluded to, there would be no additional cost to doing so. There is a lot of consensus here; making the medical marker mandatory would be common sense and improve public safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said, it would be a win-win.

I thank the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his personal insight and his continued campaigning on the issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead for the valuable points that she raised about the rural community. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, there is evidence, and the police agree with the proposal, as do the Countryside Alliance, the BMA, police and crime commissioners and firearms certificate holders. I do not want to be here again talking about another incident. I truly hope the Minister will go away and really consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The abuse of animals using weapons of any type is an incredibly serious matter, and there are such provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There is a range of offences, and I encourage anyone who witnesses this kind of event to report it to the police. I will certainly discuss what more we can do with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Many of my constituents have raised concerns about e-bikes and e-scooters being a safety hazard when modified or misused. What is the Minister doing to tackle riders travelling at high speeds on pavements and other pedestrian areas, and help my constituents to feel safe on their streets again?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can reassure the hon. Member that dangerous and antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes will be covered by the legislation we are introducing tomorrow to tackle vehicles and off-road bikes used in antisocial behaviour, so that we can keep streets and communities safe.