David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Dear all, You may have heard about this on the BBC etc this morning. There are fresh calls for 'full cost recovery' on shotgun and fiareams licencing BASC is calling for police forces across the country to take a consistent and efficient approach to firearms licensing before any increase in fees is considered. BASC is calling on police forces to put their houses in order. The police have asked the Government for a 400 per cent increase in firearms licensing fees which they say will cover costs. BASC's experience of working with its members shows that approaches by police firearms licensing departments are often inconsistent and inefficient. BASC’s director of firearms Bill Harriman will discuss the issue with crime prevention minister James Brokenshire and representatives of other shooting organisations at a meeting on Tuesday. Bill Harriman said: “We want a consistent approach. We want all police forces to follow Home Office guidelines which is not being done across the board. They have got to conform to this standard. They cannot ask for ‘full cost recovery’ on licence fees before they show that they are efficient, that costs are minimised and that a standardised approach to licensing is applied across the country. BASC is the only body in the country to collate the problems experienced with firearms licensing and its operation nationwide. Police inefficiency must not be rewarded by Government. We want a full and thorough examination of licensing procedures across every police force in the country to make sure they are firstly adhering to Home Office guidelines and secondly applying a consistent and practical approach to firearms licensing. Firearms licensing has to do two things. It has to protect public safety and the peace and allow the continued lawful use of firearms. Protecting public safety is a public good, therefore it is not unreasonable that part of the cost should be borne by the public purse.” More news when I have it David Edited February 18, 2011 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sounds good, so long as they take a leaf out of North Yorkshire's book! Never had the slightest problem, no closed certificates, no daft mentoring conditions, reasonably fast. I have an awful feeling if you make it the same countrywide things here will get a lot worse. That's my fear. If fees went up 4X I would continue gun ownership. I couldn't quite believe how cheap it all was when I first applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Is it appropriate to ask which other shooting organisations will be represented at the meeting? webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 400% is a canny increase :o Is this to cover cost's or a measure to curb gun ownership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 400% is a canny increase :o Is this to cover cost's or a measure to curb gun ownership Its the actual costs of issuing a ticket, should we be subsidized by the public purse or pay our way, its a hard one, at that figure its £40 a year so I could drop my BASC membership and buy claymans insurance and be about quits. The bigger issue is what precedent will it set, if it becomes say a money making venture we could end up with shorter licensing terms and more checks and end up coughing up far more. I've been shooting 20 years and its about the only thing in shooting that hasn't changed much prce wise in that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhead Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I don't have a problem with paying more if it is fair. I won't want to be funding a money pit though. Saying it's in the public interest for them to support firearms administration is very poor judgement. The public will rightly say otherwise. This issue must be viewed exactly the same as any other quango regulator. The lower Courts are self funding The Civil Aviation Authority covers sports and commercial use and is 100% self funding The transport agencies like DSA and VOSA covers sports and commercial use and are self funding. The list goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 it does seem interesting that they also think the police and the comittee want shotguns to become section 1, with the police also wanting no more requirements for 1 for 1 variations etc with even a mention that semi auto HMR's might become legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 It is likely to be other members of the British Shooting Sports Council, but which ones will turn up to the meeting I don't know. Also, this figure seems a tad 'grabbed out of the air' and on firstly look the costs should not be anywhere near as high as this! The last time licence fees went up by the way was 11 years ago David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XD2 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Interstingly when I had my FEO interview on Wednesday this did come up and the FEO (who was very friendly) mentioned that currently the licence fee covers about 30% of the departments costs so even just doubling it would cover the majority of what they need and also ease the presures on the department. Especially in a time where forces are already being made to cut back. With the above in mind 300-400% would cover the cost of the department in full which would mean it can carry on running efficiently (true in my area ) I am also +1 on apache's comments, I was amazed how little it costs to apply and would have still done so even at a 400% increase as long as it stood for 5 years or alternatively double the price and maybe 3 year reviews to ease the payment amount. On a final note I do not agree that there is an argument for the general public to support it, I appreciate it is a public safety issue, but it is only an issue because of the people who want to partake in the sport. So with that in mind the public view would probably be well don't do it and we won't have to pay towards it. I think covering more of the cost ourselves would only be a plus for the shooting community and non-shooters views towards it. All just my opinion of course. Edited February 18, 2011 by XD2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) I generally like the idea of using a fee increase as an opportunity to to push for adherence to the HO guidlines. Maybe this should also be the time to get them updated. For example 17 HMR and .204 Ruger are missing from Chapter 13. The whole issue of vermin, foxes etc should be clarified. I am sure other areas need updating or revisiting. HW682 (Edit: latest version is dated 2002 I think?) Edited February 18, 2011 by HW682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 the problem is anything that is self financing has the potential to be profitable at which point potentially it could be tendered out to the likes of Capita etc Of course there may be plus and minus points about that, you might get a far more even approach throughout the uk but no doubt the costs would just go in one direction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 sounds a bit silly, but iv had guns to long now, so i would pay because i love my snhooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 IT would be interesting to see where these figures come from, some police forces have far higher % of liscence holders so which forces costs is based on? or is it the average and some forces will profit others loose? Also what constitues a "cost" FEO/FLO salaires? expenses? Office space? pension? Bring game liscenes back at £50 a season and leave SGC/FAC renewal under £100. If you look at Germany and France (IIRC) hunting licences are expensive, firearms ownership much cheaper. A German hunting license is a certificate that grants its holder the exercise of hunting within legal ordinances. It is also the precondition to own hunting arms and ammunition (unlimited number of rifles/shotguns and up to two handguns). Applicants must fulfill the following requirements: Successful graduation of a hunting exam, Certificate of a liability insurance for hunters, Personal trustworthiness (§ 5 German Weapons Act), Applicants must be at least 16 years for a Youth Hunting License, otherwise 18 years, Flawless Criminal record. The hunting exam is a test of expertise with a high failure rate. To pass it, each applicant has to participate in a comprehensive, difficult instruction course which consists largely of the areas shooting (shotgun and rifle), theory (esp. weaponry, local wildlife and habitat) and practise. One bit of EU law i would welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsm1968 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 If the fee went up by more than inflation, I would be a bit hacked off. Part of my council tax goes to the local police force to provide a service. Many of the locals here are served by the police to sort their drunken rows,domestic disputes and their anti social behavior. I choose to be law abiding and use their licensing service. Funded with my tax money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhead Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Right, well I've just looked up the news item and it's a bit of a damp squib. "Minister for Crime Prevention James Brokenshire is writing to all chief constables in England and Wales reminding them of guidelines." So he's gobbing off in spite of it being Theresa May's remit. She'll be hopping mad. Steve Ottaway, collaboration programme director for Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police is already on record saying public safety has not been compromised but resources are limited. The rest is speculation. James Brokenshire is empire building. Trying make a link between reduced visits and crime prevention (his true remit) will do him no good. If I knew that my FEO wasn't going to visit me in person for the planned one hour in 2.5 years time, it will not make me become a criminal ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Trust me its not a damp squibb, and goes way beyond the headline here. As I say the meeting is on Tuesday and I will update you all then. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I have an excellent FEO and am more than happy with the service I get. The problem I see with a uniform approach means I will most likely inherent some of the nonsense conditions from the less reasonable forces. It would be nice to think they would all be brought up to the standard of the very best, but in reality I think we all know that isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Interestingly the feedback police wise is they would like to simplify it all. Bits like no difference vetween expanding and non expanding ammo, no more need for 1 for 1 variations and everything on a section 1 is the only iffy bit but probably not that iffy if you already have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 everything on a section 1 is the only iffy bit but probably not that iffy if you already have one. I have more shotguns that I could ever give a real 'need' for each one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Forgive my ignorance if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but if shotgun licencing was shaken up to a system more in line with rifles would this also provide justification for the licensing authorities to make us 'justify' every shotgun? FM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 This is a different issue, yes there were suggestions from the HASC re a Sec1 type system for all - not, to the best of my knowledge supported by ACPO /the operational police. This is a separate issue - the cost of licence renewal, moving to full cost recovery. To be fair, the vast majority of constabularies are very good, there are only a very small number that tend to be a bit daft, so if there is a move to consistency in terms of how the law is interpreted / applied, it would go with the majority - i.e. the sensible approach as promoted by ACPO best practice document and the Home Office guidance. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 This is a different issue, yes there were suggestions from the HASC re a Sec1 type system for all - not, to the best of my knowledge supported by ACPO /the operational police. Its only worded as research done by him suggests the police might want them all on section 1 tickets, also worth noting is they would like to pass on charges for change of address etc which could be hefty if its another visit etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Which is why its important we meet with the minister ASAP to get a grip on this! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 also worth noting is they would like to pass on charges for change of address etc which could be hefty if its another visit etc As I sit here musing the issue I can see 'self funding' would be good for shooters to show critics. Why not double fees for issuing/renewals and charge a small amount for variations, adding guns etc. £10 to add or remove a gun wouldn't break the bank and you wouldn't need to shell out so much at renewal. I can see that a change of address and visit costing £50 isn't going to break anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Given the cost has not risen in 11 years, it should come as no surprise that it was going to go up sooner or later. BUT let’s keep the costs realistic and sensible, the 400% was just grabbed out of the air! But is we are paying for a service then we MUST demand a equity of service across the UK based on law, the Home Office Guidance and the ACPO best practice, not some local jobs worth opinion that he is the master of all he surveys! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.