Firearms Licensing

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

That is absolutely right. I do not know the club in question, but that is the same point that many of my constituents and others have made as part of the debate on this proposal.

If the Government wish to improve public safety, I encourage them to accept the proposal for mandatory medical markers, which is backed by organisations such as BASC. They would ensure that medical concerns are identified as they arise, rather than waiting for licence renewal. That proposal has cross-party and industry support, yet the Government have rejected it. However well intentioned, the Government’s proposals would not improve public safety, but would simply harm our rural communities and the hundreds of thousands of people who use shotguns lawfully.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. We must have an eye, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said, for the overall lethality of the population of firearms. Will my hon. Friend reflect on whether we are in a “careful what you wish for” situation? I am a shotgun certificate holder and an owner of a shotgun. If I am forced to go through the procedure to effectively get a firearms licence, I am much more likely to acquire a firearm, so although the number of shotguns out there might fall, the number of rifles, and therefore the overall lethality of the population of firearms, might actually rise.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important that the Government and the civil servants supporting them consider the wider impacts of these changes if they are implemented. Firearms legislation has been crucial to keeping people safe and there are practical, workable measures that the Government could take to improve it, but this proposal is not one of them. It will make it harder for those who work in our rural communities to do their jobs. The Government must listen to the evidence, to those who have responded to the consultation and to the Members across the Chamber. I urge them to abandon these plans because they will not work and they will severely impact jobs, the economy and our rural way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point about the administrative burden, but does he agree that the most burdensome element would probably be the restrictions placed on ammunition? In particular, individual licence holders would have a limit on the amount of ammunition they could own at any one time. I think something like 250 million cartridges are sold every year in the UK, and that would all have to be recorded and auditable; there would have to be an audit trail and probably an inspection regime to ensure that people were not buying or acquiring more than their limit. The administration of that would involve enormous numbers of people and probably result in the end in the acquisition of a huge computer system at vast cost, just to track something that is not at the moment identified as a problem.

[Stuart Anderson]

My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point, which will often be overlooked when people are looking at the difference between section 1 and section 2. People will bulk order shotgun cartridges; they will be able to pick them up when they need them for a shoot, legally, with a licence—they cannot buy them without that licence. As I raised at the beginning of the debate, there are about 170,000 section 1 licences and 500,000 section 2 shotgun licences. The administrative burden for the police would be off the scale, and it is hard to see how they could even deal with this.

That moves me nicely on to my next point, about the impact on the police. As we have heard, the National Crime Agency has stated:

“Legally-held firearms are rarely used”

in criminal activity. On top of that, as I mentioned at the beginning, how on earth will police authorities deal with 500,000 additional licences if they are merged into section 1? That is a significant burden, particularly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) just mentioned, in terms of ammunition. That issue is often overlooked, but people buy pallet loads because they are organising or planning shoots; it is quite a regular thing for people who shoot week in, week out. That will create a significant burden that I do not believe any police force will be able to deal with under the constraints they currently face. I speak regularly with my police authority, West Mercia police, and they do a great job in this area, but the current system already places pressures on them.

This has been a reasoned debate, and it is only fair that I mention what some of my constituents have said. Anthony, who regularly shoots, said:

“This is yet another culture war inspired attack”

on rural communities.” Tom, who is also from my constituency, said:

“the latest proposals seem more designed to punish”

than to legislate. That is the impact; that is how this proposal is landing out there. I know that that is not the intention, and that the Government are listening, and we are trying to have the most reasoned debate on this issue.

The Countryside Alliance has suggested an alternative solution. The hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned that people are aware that the legislation on licensing might need to change, and the Countryside Alliance has suggested the good idea of having a single, centralised firearms licensing body—like the Disclosure and Barring Service or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—which would allow the police to perform their normal roles, rather than becoming a licensing body, which they are not set up to be. A centralised digital system could work with local police authorities, and I am sure the Countryside Alliance has much more information if the Minister requires it.

To conclude, a merger of sections 1 and 2, although it has been set out with good intentions, will have far-reaching consequences that have probably not been thought through in great detail. It will result in a loss to the rural economy, with far fewer people having licences and the police facing an unsustainable administrative burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.