Firearms Licensing

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent introduction.

I came here today because I want to listen to the arguments and help inform my thinking about gun licensing. This debate is about one very narrow aspect of shotgun licensing and, while my instinct is always towards stricter gun control, my starting point has to be that any change to the law must make people safer in a meaningful way. It should not add complexity or bureaucracy unless there is a clear and proportionate safety benefit.

I am proud that Britain has strong gun control. Public safety has long underpinned our approach to gun control, and that is reflected in our relatively low levels of firearms offences. Shotguns have legitimate uses, both for sport and animal control. The process for obtaining a shotgun licence is simpler than that for other firearms. Police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted with a firearm, has a good reason to own one and will not endanger public safety. At the moment, shotgun licences are generally granted unless there is a good reason to refuse one, whereas rifles, which are more powerful, require a higher level of proof. They require applicants to demonstrate a good reason for the use of each firearm.

The consultation that the Government introduced asked whether those tests should be joined together under a single framework to make application rules for shotguns the same as those for rifles. The current framework has worked well for the vast majority of licence holders, but we have seen tragedies with legally held firearms, such as in Plymouth in 2021 and Woodmancote in 2020. The Government therefore launched a consultation on whether the existing distinctions still made sense. I came here today because I am genuinely undecided. I do not know the best way forward, so it has been interesting to hear the debate, particularly the details of coroners’ reports and of what underpinned the tragedies that we have seen with legally held firearms.

I grew up in a very small Cumbrian village of about 300 people. I may have shot a few tin cans in my time, so I understand that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and I understand how important shooting is to rural life. A number of my rural constituents have reached out to share how these potential changes would affect their community. I am glad that the Government are committed to listening to what is said about the role that shooting plays in the rural economy and in rural culture. My constituents have reminded me just how strict the safeguards that are already in place are—background checks, medical markers, police interviews and renewals every five years are not trivial hurdles.

Of course, there are substantial differences between the ways that shotguns and rifles are used. Shotguns are generally less concealable, more associated with game and pest control, and less commonly used in organised criminality than other firearms. However, at the same time we have to look at the logic of the system. There are practical difficulties to having different legal tests for different weapons, and it can feel inconsistent to the public, particularly to those who are not used to being around guns and the legal use of firearms. It can be difficult for the police to apply different tests.

Of course, those who have been bereaved by gun violence, those who have been harmed by guns, those who work in domestic abuse settings, and those who have experienced domestic abuse in which firearms were a part will rightly ask what we are going to do to help prevent future tragedies. Given how deadly they are, we of course need tight controls on weapons; I think that everyone here agrees with that. There have already been important steps in this area to try to prevent harm, including a greater focus on screening for any signs of potential future violence, and police interviewing partners or household members, where reasonable, to spot signs of domestic abuse or other red flags.

I will touch on suicide prevention. We know from studies of suicide prevention that restricting the means of suicide can save lives. That is why we have controls on the sale of paracetamol, and why we have blister packs for medication. Interrupting the suicidal impulse before harm can be caused is really important. Shotgun deaths are a very small proportion of total deaths by suicide but people who attempt suicide by shotgun normally die. Making it harder to obtain a gun could possibly prevent impulsive acts or accidents.

The question before us is not whether we want to prevent tragedies; everybody in this Chamber wants to do so. This is about whether aligning the licensing regimes would reduce deaths and serious harms, whether any benefits would justify the additional burdens placed on applicants and police forces, and whether there would be any unintended consequences. I know that police forces are already under pressure on the licensing of firearms.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, in coming here today to try to find those answers. On the police force side, West Mercia currently takes about 12 months to renew a licence. Licences are for five years. My constituents say that they start to apply at the three-year to three-and-a-half-year point. If, for some reason, someone leaves renewal until six months before it is due, they will have six months without a licence that they might need for their job. There are already huge pressures on the police; does the hon. Member realise how big a concern that is?

[Lizzi Collinge]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We already have backlogs for firearms licensing. Some people rely on firearms for their living. If there are changes to the licensing laws, those need to come with proper resourcing to make sure that they are actually enforceable. As we have heard in this debate, it does not really matter what is on the page; it matters what happens in reality—as with any law that we pass. That needs to be thought about very carefully.

We need to make sure that these rules would meaningfully increase safety, not just ramp up bureaucracy, and that they are evidence-led, proportionate and targeted at genuine risk. I will continue to listen; this debate has been absolutely fascinating. I will also listen to my constituents, the police, and experts in lots of different areas. I urge the Minister to ensure that any way forward be informed by the evidence and by the practical realities on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I should start by saying that I am a shooter and a fisherman, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) referred to, and an active farmer—I do all those things.

I am entirely opposed to this latest urban metropolitan attack on rural Britain. Merging licences would create yet more delays, more cost and more bureaucracy. Responsible gun owners are not the enemy. Let us be absolutely clear who we are talking about. We are talking about farmers, gamekeepers, sportsmen and women, and rural families. They are people who follow the law to the letter, store their firearms safely, and undergo background checks, police scrutiny and ongoing oversight. These are not criminals; they are among the most law-abiding people in Britain.

Keeping section 1 and section 2 licensing separate recognises an important distinction in both law and practice. These systems have existed for decades and they work. They provide proper oversight while allowing legitimate, responsible ownership. Merging the two systems would not target criminals, because criminals, by definition, do not apply for licences. They do not fill out forms. They do not submit to background checks. They do not follow the law. They do what they want. They do not care about what we say in this place.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he accept that there have been instances where firearms have been lawfully obtained by people without a previous criminal record who have nevertheless used them to commit harm, particularly to themselves or someone very close to them?

[Rupert Lowe]

Of course some incidents have happened, but then incidents have happened with baseball bats and with other instruments that have not been banned and will not be banned. The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but the issue needs to be looked at very carefully, because I think there are less incidents of the kind she described than she might think.

Merging licences would create more bureaucracy, as I have said, as well as more delay, more cost and more pressure on police licensing units, which are already struggling to process applications on time while the police prioritise prosecuting people for social media posts. Trust me—I understand this more than most. I had my guns seized in a late-night armed police raid following the Reform party’s false allegations about me. It took me months to get them back—a process based on subjectivity, which is dangerous. Despite Reform’s best efforts, I remain both a shotgun and a firearm licence holder, and a gun owner.

Further delays would have real consequences for rural livelihoods, and for a long and respected British tradition that contributes to conservation, employment and the rural economy. Public safety is not improved by targeting those who already comply fully with the law; it is improved by focusing on illegal weapons, organised crime and those who present a genuine risk.

Responsible firearm owners are not the problem. They are citizens who follow the rules, respect the law and deserve to be treated accordingly. We should not burden them with unnecessary bureaucracy that achieves nothing except making their lives harder. I urge the Government to rethink these plans and to finally start treating responsible gun owners with some respect. Further gratuitous conflict between the urban and countryside communities is an undesirable development when there is no justification to puerile legislation that is based on ideology, not common sense. Criminality with legally registered shotguns and firearms is not the issue; a malign civil service agenda is.