Police chiefs will consider the possibility of offering a gun to every frontline police officer in England and Wales, to counter the threat of a marauding terrorist attack, the Guardian has learned.

A discussion paper on the subject has been drawn up for the next meeting of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), which wants to look at how to boost armed police numbers to deal with a crisis, following the atrocities in Manchester and London.

The paper is intended to start a debate on the issue among police leaders at the two-day meeting that starts on 12 July – although it is thought at this stage unlikely that any wider arming will be agreed upon. Routine arming is controversial within policing and many do not support it.

But it may also mark the start of a shift in thinking on the topic, which could speed up in the event of any future attacks. Also up for discussion, sources say, is the introduction of more specially trained armed officers in cars, and offering handguns to some patrol officers as well as the idea that all frontline officers could be offered training to carry a gun.



Traditionally, most police in Great Britain are unarmed – unlike their counterparts in Northern Ireland – but police sources say the longstanding principle is under pressure after four terrorist attacks in three months.

One of the reasons the topic is on the agenda is concern over how some areas – particularly those outside London – would cope with a marauding terrorist attack.

One option in the paper for getting armed officers more quickly to the scene of an attack is for officers to be offered a sidearm, like officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

The paper also suggests that beat officers who are now unarmed would get about two weeks of training in how to use a handgun. That is much less training than the six weeks for fully qualified armed officers.



The beat officers would then get a day of refresher training and re-accreditation twice a year. The upside of this option is that police chiefs might get enough officers volunteering, and it would boost the number of officers who can handle a gun in a crisis more quickly than other options.



However, handguns cost £500 each, and training would further stretch resources, as officers would have to take time off to train.

A spokesperson for the NPCC said: “These are early-stage discussions, not yet at a phase of formal proposals. Also, any decision regarding arming patrol officers would be subject to extensive threat and risk assessments to ensure it was justified by the nature of the threat.

“Our goal at this stage is to have a mature and considered discussion about armed policing with the government, PCCs [police and crime commissioners], and [police] chiefs.”

The author of the discussion paper is Simon Chesterman, the national police lead on firearms.

But those behind the discussion point to the fact that in the 2013 terrorist murder of Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, south London, unarmed police were unable to intervene until their armed colleagues arrived on the scene. One source added: “It will allow officers to access a firearm in the event of an attack.”



Until now, the preferred option was for highly trained armed officers to be deployed, patrolling the streets in armed response vehicles (ARVs), and ready to be sent to the scene of attack. But the problem is that it might not be possible to get such a unit to the scene of a terror attack on time, particularly outside the capital.

At the council meeting, the police chiefs will be asked to consider how they would deal with a London Bridge-style attack. If they think it would take too long to send enough armed officers to the scene, they are asked to consider whether it would make sense to increase their number of armed response vehicles or to arm frontline officers.

London is thought to have enough armed officers to rush to the scene of an attack. In the case of London Bridge, it took eight minutes for officers to find and kill the three terrorists, who were attacking people with knives.

The Westminster attack in March saw about 50 armed officers on the scene in 11 minutes, although in that instance the attacker was stopped because an armed protection officer happened to be in the grounds of the Houses of Parliament.

There has already been one drive to increase the number of fully trained armed officers, after the Paris attacks in November 2015. That effort is on target, but only just, and some senior officers now believe it insufficient.

Legally, police chiefs in the 43 forces across England and Wales are operationally independent, and any decision about the arming of officers is formally for them and their police and crime commissioners, although any significant change would be a matter of political debate.

In a recent survey of Met officers, the Metropolitan Police Federation found just over half said they would carry a gun routinely if asked to do so. One in 10 said they would quit rather than carry a firearm.

