Tim Bonner: Lead ammunition and licensing - change is coming to shooting

The politics of shooting is not box office material, but this week has seen two announcements that will have a far-reaching impact on all shooting disciplines. The first was the publication of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) proposals to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for live quarry shooting and target shooting. The recommendations are for a ban on all lead shotgun ammunition after a five-year transition with a derogation for elite level clay shooters, and a ban on lead rifle ammunition of .243 calibre and above for live quarry after a three-year transition.

The proposals will now be considered by governments in England, Scotland and Wales, but after a long and detailed process, which is being mirrored in the European Union, it is unlikely that Ministers will diverge significantly from the HSE’s recommendations. No-one who has even vaguely been following this process will be surprised at the likelihood of a ban on lead shotgun ammunition probably in 2030 and most rifle ammunition in 2028. The good news is that there have been significant developments in non-lead ammunition in recent years, most significantly the availability of steel cartridges with biodegradable shot cups, which mean that the transition away from lead need not impact significantly on game shooting, wildlife management or other shooting disciplines.

The primary reason for the prohibition is to prevent around 7,000 tonnes of lead, which can be toxic to wildlife, being deposited in the environment every year. This is something we should all be positive about, not least because it is difficult to properly promote all the conservation benefits of shooting and wildlife management whilst using lead ammunition. An added benefit is that non-lead shot game is much easier to market to the general public than selling pheasants and partridges with a label warning about the toxicity of lead. We know from public opinion research that eating game is the single most persuasive argument for game shooting and we should be doing everything possible to make it accessible. For both these reasons the Alliance, with our partner shooting organisations, have been encouraging people to make the transition to non-lead ammunition now rather than waiting for legislation.

The second announcement came from Home Office Minister Diana Johnson who, in response to a parliamentary question, confirmed that the government would be pushing ahead with its manifesto commitment to impose ‘full cost recovery’ on firearms licences. She gave no further details and the possible outcomes of this proposal could vary greatly.

On the one hand it could be an opportunity to restructure the licensing system to deliver an efficient and consistent service for the public and licence holders. Licence fees have not risen since 2015 and if this was the government’s approach then an increase in fees would not seem unreasonable. On the other hand, Ministers could just dump the cost of the current patently inefficient system on gun owners whilst doing nothing to address the completely outdated model of 43 separate licensing authorities based on police force areas, some of which are not even delivering a basic service. It would be entirely unacceptable to increase fees by hundreds of pounds, whilst not addressing the obvious need for reform.

Whilst this may seem a niche issue to some in the Labour Party there are around 600,000 households in the country with a licensed gun owner, most of them in rural areas. Given the government’s other challenges in the countryside, it would be wise to think carefully how it approaches this issue.