Cross‑Party MPs Push Back on Shotgun Licensing Proposal

More News

The Westminster Hall debate on Monday 23 February regarding the proposal to align Section 2 shotgun certificates with Section 1 firearms licensing followed a petition that gathered more than 121,000 signatures. It was a serious and measured discussion. No one suggested the current system is beyond improvement, but neither was there any appetite to assume that merger is automatically the solution. Notably, not one MP spoke in favour of the proposal, and twenty-four MPs from across the political spectrum rejected it.

There was broad agreement in the chamber that the firearms licensing framework, built on legislation dating back to 1968 and amended in response to tragedy over the decades, needs updating. Technology has moved on. Criminal behaviour has evolved. Licensing systems must reflect that reality. On modernisation, there was clear cross-party support.

Where MPs were far more cautious was on the question of alignment. From the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation’s perspective, the issue is straightforward. If the structure of the law is to change, it must be because that change will demonstrably improve safety. That case has not yet been made.

Recent cases were central to the debate. In Plymouth, the failure concerned judgement and decision making within the existing system. In Bedfordshire, the problem was a forged certificate and the absence of real time verification. In both instances, the weakness lay in how the system operated, not in how firearms are categorised in law. That distinction matters. Reform should target the vulnerabilities that have been exposed. Expanding categories without clear evidence of improved outcomes risks adding complexity without addressing the root cause.

Statistics cited during the debate framed the question of proportionality. There are more than 500,000 shotgun certificate holders in the United Kingdom and around 170,000 Section 1 certificate holders. In the most recent reporting year, four homicides involved a licensed firearm. A long-term average of fewer than four homicides per year involving legally owned shotguns was referenced. At the same time, MPs rightly raised safeguarding concerns, particularly in relation to domestic abuse and medical oversight. Risk exists and must be addressed. But policy must reflect where risk is concentrated and how best to reduce it.

Operational capacity was another consistent theme. Firearms licensing departments are under pressure. Processing delays are common. Backlogs persist. Expanding Section 1 administrative requirements to more than half a million additional certificate holders would be a substantial undertaking. Without clear evidence that such a move would reduce harm, the case for merger remains unproven.

The responsibility now lies with the Government. If alignment is to proceed, it must be demonstrated clearly that it would have prevented the failures cited and that it would materially strengthen public safety. That evidence has not yet been presented.

There was, however, strong support for modernisation. Real time digital verification would directly address forged documentation. Consistent medical markers would strengthen early risk identification. Better training and greater national consistency would reduce variation between forces. These are practical reforms, closely linked to the weaknesses exposed in recent cases.

For those working in the countryside, this debate is not theoretical. For farmers, gamekeepers and land managers, shotguns are tools used daily in pest control, wildlife management and habitat stewardship. Reform must therefore be workable in practice as well as defensible in principle. Public safety and rural livelihoods are not competing objectives. Both matter, and both must be protected.

The debate did not result in immediate legislative change. What it did do was underline a clear direction. Updating systems commands support. Structural merger does not yet command proof.

For the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the next stage is engagement. Members should continue to respond to consultations, speak to their MPs and ensure that practical countryside experience remains part of the conversation. Decisions taken in Westminster will shape how licensing works on the ground.

Reform is necessary. But it must be careful, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Alignment should not be treated as inevitable simply because it has been proposed. If change is to come, it must be shown to make people safer in practice, not just on paper.

 

Ends

 

Notes to Editors:

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation: The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO) represents the gamekeepers of England and Wales. The NGO defends and promotes gamekeeping and gamekeepers and works to ensure high standards throughout the profession. The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation was founded in 1997 by a group of gamekeepers who felt that keepering was threatened by public misunderstanding and poor representation. Today, there are 13,000 members of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation.  www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk