MPs Cool on Shotgun-Rifle Licensing Merger as Government Plans Consultation
High-Level Summary
Westminster Hall debated e‑petition 750236 on aligning shotgun (section 2) and rifle (section 1) licensing. Many Members questioned the case for merging regimes, citing limited evidence of safety benefits, significant administrative burdens on already stretched police licensing units, and potential harm to rural economies and sports. Alternatives raised included mandatory GP medical markers, real‑time certificate verification, and a centralised, digitised licensing system. The Minister said the Government is open‑minded and will consult in due course, referencing police training reforms, potential centralisation as part of wider police reform, and existing use of GP medical markers. No decision was taken; the House resolved that it had considered the petition.
Detailed Summary
E‑petition 750236: Sections 1 and 2 firearms licensing
Ben Goldsborough opened the debate, confirming its scope and the specific proposal under discussion: “That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.” He described the policy question as “a proposal to merge sections 1 and 2 of the Firearms Act 1968”, set out competing priorities of safety and rural livelihoods, and noted that certificate holders are rarely linked to organised crime: “The National Crime Agency has said that firearms certificate holders are highly unlikely to be involved in serious and organised crime.” He cited the sector’s economic footprint, stating, “It contributes £3.3 billion a year in gross value added to the UK economy”, and that it “supports an estimated 67,000 full-time equivalent jobs.” He also highlighted domestic abuse risks and that “More than 60% of women killed with guns were shot using a licensed firearm.” On technology, he warned that 3D printing and the conversion of imitation firearms are changing the crime landscape. Petitioners feared added bureaucracy without safety gains, including that “merging section 1 and section 2 licensing would increase bureaucracy” and risk being “without delivering meaningful safety benefits.”
Many Members argued merger would be disproportionate. John Lamont said the change “would not make people feel safer” and noted that “only four homicide cases involved a licensed firearm” in 2024‑25. Robbie Moore referenced the Law Commission’s 2015 report, which “did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system”, while others urged mandatory medical markers in GP records. Several speakers said recent tragedies reflected implementation failures rather than the legal distinction; for example, Stuart Anderson argued a merger “would have not made an impact on either of those tragic incidents”. Blake Stephenson highlighted the Bedfordshire Prosper case—where a forged certificate enabled a shotgun purchase—and said the national licensing system is being replaced, “expected in mid-2027”, with “real-time online certificate verification” planned. Members also raised capacity and economic concerns, noting the National Crime Agency’s view that “Legally-held firearms are rarely used” in crime.
Responding, the Minister emphasised the gravity of licensing decisions and confirmed an open approach: “We are not minded to do one thing or another; we are conducting the consultation and listening to the evidence and the debate.” She said wider police reform creates an opportunity to consider national licensing and highlighted training improvements. On safeguards, she reported “98,000 active digital markers on patient GP records” and “over 1,100 cases in which the GP notified the police of a medical concern.” Addressing why to consult, she cited recommendations after Keyham, including the Independent Office for Police Conduct proposal to “remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.” No decision was made; the debate concluded, “Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.” Next steps are the publication of the consultation “in due course”; no specific timetable was stated in the transcript.