Firearms Licensing

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In preparing for today’s debate, I spoke with experts on both sides of this issue. I thank everyone who took the time to speak with me, including the petition creator, Lisa, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors, the Gun Control Network and a professor of criminology. I also thank everyone who took the time to meet me, and I thank the excellent staff of the Petitions Committee for their support.

Colleagues will be unsurprised to hear that strong views were expressed on both sides of the issue, but what impressed me most was the broad agreement that I found on the need for legislative reform and the need to ensure safety. I know that some hon. Members here today represent constituencies that have been touched by gun violence tragedies in recent years. I trust that everyone here will agree that we must be in full listening mode when hearing from those colleagues. We all want the best for our constituents; we all want to ensure that they are kept safe, and it is crucial that even when Members disagree, today’s debate is kept respectful.

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we consult fully the farming community? Shotguns are not just a sporting accessory; to farmers, they are an essential aspect of their life in order to control vermin, so will he ensure that the debate carries on? The last Government wisely decided not to proceed with this proposal. We have had separate legislation for shotguns and other firearms since 1920. That is really important for farmers, so the current Government should be very wary about proceeding with the proposal.

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I will be addressing those issues in my speech.

We need to be clear on what today’s debate is about. We are discussing a specific policy point: a proposal to merge sections 1 and 2 of the Firearms Act 1968—in other words, to align licensing controls on shotguns with those that already apply to rifles. In introducing this debate, I will do my utmost to explore how we can protect the shooting industry and rural economy, tidy up and update the legislative framework, and ensure the safety of all our constituents. At its heart, the debate is about balance. It is about recognising the legitimacy of lawful shooting and the economic and cultural contribution that it makes.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to pay tribute to a stalwart of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Christopher Graffius, who died in his sleep last week. There were many issues on which we had different views, but he was extremely kind and helpful to me when I was a shadow Minister. He had a huge depth of knowledge and passion for the countryside and would have been following this debate closely. He was a true gentleman, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that we will all miss his kindness, integrity and fellowship.

That was excellently put by my hon. Friend. All of us who had the pleasure of spending time with Christopher send our heartfelt condolences to his family, because he was, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a gent.

We also need to ensure that we respond to the risk, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our laws reflect the reality of the world that we live in today, not the world as it was 60 years ago.

Let me begin by setting out clearly where we are. In the United Kingdom, there are about half a million gun owners—they are roughly 1% of the population—and about 90% use their firearms for leisure, for sport or for legitimate countryside management. The overwhelming majority of owners are responsible. The National Crime Agency has said that firearms certificate holders are highly unlikely to be involved in serious and organised crime. That important fact deserves to be stated clearly in this House.

The shooting sector is also economically significant. It contributes £3.3 billion a year in gross value added to the UK economy, generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports an estimated 67,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Those jobs are not abstract; they are jobs in rural pubs, hotels, small family-run retailers, manufacturing, tourism, land management and pest control. They are jobs that sustain rural communities and working people across our country. In my constituency of South Norfolk and those of many across the House, the leisure sector is not a lifestyle choice, but the backbone of the local economy. We must always be mindful that decisions taken in Westminster have real-world consequences in such communities.

At the same time, our legislative framework is undeniably outdated. Much of it dates back to the 1960s and, while amendments made since then, in particular after tragedies such as Dunblane, have strengthened safety, the overall framework has evolved in a piecemeal way. Such reforms, including the ban on handguns, were necessary and proportionate responses to unimaginable horror. They reflected the will of the public and the duty of Parliament to act in the interests of safety. I do not believe that anyone serious about public safety would suggest reversing those protections, but it is equally true that legislation cannot stand still, because the world does not.

The hon. Member is making some important points, but did he note that the Law Commission, in its 2015 report on firearms, did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system? He references the points made to do with previous incidents, but the Law Commission was very clear in its 2015 recommendations to the Government of the time.

Later in my speech, I will address some of the reforms that I think are needed. There are pressures on 3D-printed firearms, amendments and adaptions; those sorts of issues are more pressing matters that we need to address, but I will come to them later.

In existing law, the distinction between sections 1 and 2 is clear. Under section 2, an individual may obtain a shotgun certificate and, once it is granted, may own multiple shotguns without specifying each individual firearm in advance. Under section 1, the process is more restrictive: applicants must demonstrate a good reason for owning each firearm; each weapon must be individually authorised; and use is generally restricted to specific land and subject to police oversight. That distinction reflects differences in use, tradition and lethality.

Fortunately, gun violence in the United Kingdom remains rare by international standards. In the year ending September 2025, 4,851 firearms offences were recorded in England and Wales, a 9% decrease on the previous year. That is welcome progress, but behind the numbers are still lives lost, families grieving and communities changed forever.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will continue a little.

In the year ending March 2025, 32 people were killed by shooting. When we look more closely at the figures, we see deeply troubling patterns. More than 60% of women killed with guns were shot using a licensed firearm. That statistic should give pause to everyone in the Chamber. It reminds us that the greatest risks often arise not from organised crime, but from breakdowns in systems that are supposed to protect people. Domestic abuse featured prominently in many of the conversations I had ahead of this debate. Firearms in the home can be used not only as weapons, but as tools of coercion and control. Their presence can deepen fear, make escape feel impossible and turn moments of crisis into irreversible tragedy.

We must also recognise the wider context. Mental health challenges are particularly acute in rural communities, and isolation, financial pressure and barriers to accessing services all play a role. Access to a lethal means during moments of acute distress can turn temporary despair into permanent loss.

I should alert Members that I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. On that point about mental health issues, does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical markers on doctors’ records would be a perfect solution to that problem, rather than necessarily doing what is proposed in the petition?

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I think he has read a bit of my speech.

Technological change is introducing new risks. The conversion of blank-firing weapons and imitation firearms, and emerging technologies such as 3D printing, are changing the landscape of firearms crime. Such developments do not respect the boundaries of legislation written decades ago. We face a dual responsibility: we must protect public safety, and we must do so in a way that is fair, proportionate and grounded in evidence.

The petition before us, signed by more than 121,000 people, reflects genuine concern. Many petitioners fear that merging section 1 and section 2 licensing would increase bureaucracy, create delays and impose additional costs without delivering meaningful safety benefits. Those concerns are not just abstract; they reflect real frustrations with an already stretched licensing system. Many applicants experience long waits and many police forces face a capacity challenge. Will the Minister ensure that any proposed changes are accompanied by robust economic modelling, including of the potential impact on rural businesses, on employment and on participation?

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is doing a damn good job of opening the debate. The Father of the House referred to farmers needing shotguns to control vermin. The crofters in my constituency have huge trouble with hooded crows, who come to peck out the eyes of lambs—no wonder they need their guns. I wish that Members from the Scottish National party were here today, because policing in the north of Scotland is a shadow of what it was, and the proposals would put an additional strain on those cops. They have not got the time to do all this.

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am going to make some progress.

We must never fall into the trap of believing that good intentions alone are sufficient. Policy must be judged on outcomes. We must also recognise the distinct nature of different firearms. Shotguns and rifles serve different purposes, they have different characteristics and they are used in different contexts. Farmers and pest controllers rely on shotguns as tools of their trade. Any reform must recognise that reality and ensure that legitimate working use is protected.

At the same time, we can take clear and practical steps to strengthen safety without imposing unnecessary burdens. We can ensure that licensing decisions are informed by the fullest possible information, including appropriate engagement with medical professionals. We can strengthen safeguards in cases involving domestic abuse. We can modernise licensing systems, embracing digital technology to reduce delays, improve consistency and free up police time.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am going to make some progress.

We can ensure that legislation keeps pace with technological change, closing loopholes before they can be exploited, and we can ensure that our approach is coherent, joined up and fit for the 21st century. Ultimately, this is not about choosing between safety and the rural economy; it is about recognising that both matter and deserve our attention, and that good legislation must deliver both.

In my constituency and constituencies across the country, people expect us to get this right. They expect us to listen carefully, act responsibly and put safety first while respecting lawful activity and rural livelihoods. This debate is not about ideology; it is about responsibility to victims, rural communities and the many thousands of people who participate in shooting safely and lawfully. Let us approach the issue in that spirit, seeking not easy answers but the right ones, not driven by fear but guided by evidence, and not choosing between safety and prosperity but delivering both. When we get legislation right, listen, and act thoughtfully and carefully, we strengthen not only public safety but public trust. That is our most important duty of all.