NEWS FLASH!!!!! Double the licence fees

[JonathanL]

The proposal is in the public domain. ACPO went to the press over the weekend and our statement was issued yesterday, once we had confirmed the figure of £94.

Costs per force are not routinely published, but you could approach your PCC. We are aware that costs vary enormously and are seeking an explanation.

ACPO and others are claiming that there is a "taxpayer subsidy" running at around 50%. This is not entirely accurate but there is a discrepancy between costs and fee income. Costs are one of the elements that BASC is focusing on.

ACPO's lead on firearms, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, has stated that he is intent on reducing the costs generated by the police. This, for us, is an essential part of the process.

Police IT budgets are not available to us.

We are firmly resisting any rise which could be seen as punitive, or designed to reduce the number of shooters.

As our statement (above) mentions the proposal has been made to Government by ACPO and we are in discussion with both.

Simon.

 

Is it the view of BASC that anything which is not strictly necessary to the purpose which firearms the licensing system seeks to achieve (the protection of the public harm and maintaining of the peace) should not be included in the system?

 

There are several things which could be heavily modified or done away with. There are no public safety concerns which need to be addressed by imposing a limit on the amount of ammunition an FAC holder may possess. Is it the view of BASC that ammunition limits should be dispensed with?

 

There is no benefit to the current requirement that firearms to be acquired on the authority of an FAC be specified in terms of a specific calibre, chambering or action type. As long as the firearm you wish to acquire can be used lawfully for the good reason which you provided in your application then any further defining of what it is allowed to be acquired or possessed serves no public safety benefit.

 

There is no public safety benefit in applying conditions as to use to an FAC. If you can show good reason for the grant then there is no reason as to why you should not be able to use it for any lawful purpose, especially as, broadly speaking, any lawful purpose is good reason in its self for the grant of the FAC.

 

J.

[Whitebridges]

The proposal is in the public domain. ACPO went to the press over the weekend and our statement was issued yesterday, once we had confirmed the figure of £94.

Costs per force are not routinely published, but you could approach your PCC. We are aware that costs vary enormously and are seeking an explanation.

ACPO and others are claiming that there is a "taxpayer subsidy" running at around 50%. This is not entirely accurate but there is a discrepancy between costs and fee income. Costs are one of the elements that BASC is focusing on.

ACPO's lead on firearms, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, has stated that he is intent on reducing the costs generated by the police. This, for us, is an essential part of the process.

Police IT budgets are not available to us.

We are firmly resisting any rise which could be seen as punitive, or designed to reduce the number of shooters.

As our statement (above) mentions the proposal has been made to Government by ACPO and we are in discussion with both.

Simon.

 

Simon, thank you for taking the trouble to reply.

 

I'm pleased you and the rest of the BASC are clearly on the job with this matter.

 

It is very odd that licencing fees haven't gone up by at least annual RPI since they were last fixed. So I guess there is a fair bit of "catch up" to do hence the huge proposed increase.

 

"Chief Constable Andy Marsh, has stated that he is intent on reducing the costs generated by the police". This is good news but surely if he achieves this the current cost should go down not up. Unless of course we are talking about another bit of indirect taxation?

[JonathanL]

 

"Chief Constable Andy Marsh, has stated that he is intent on reducing the costs generated by the police". This is good news but surely if he achieves this the current cost should go down not up. Unless of course we are talking about another bit of indirect taxation?

 

Then he should be asking for Parliament to take the job of firearms licensing away from the police. If they disn't do it they couldn't generate any costs.

 

Firearms licensing is not a job for the police. They don't licence vehicles, drivers, pubs, food preparation establishments, doctors, chemists or anything else which could pose a danger to the public if improperly controlled. Why firearms?

 

J.

[Scully]

 

 

 

There is no benefit to the current requirement that firearms to be acquired on the authority of an FAC be specified in terms of a specific calibre, chambering or action type. As long as the firearm you wish to acquire can be used lawfully for the good reason which you provided in your application then any further defining of what it is allowed to be acquired or possessed serves no public safety benefit.

 

 

 

J.

Amongst others,this particular point has been one I have had a bug-bear about for years and have often discussed it with various FEO's.In its present form it makes no logical sense whatsoever.As long as you satisfy the 'good reason' criteria then what difference can it possibly make to the benefit of public safety?You're either fit to posess or you're not.

It's not as if it would be difficuilt to implement either: Authorised to posess for whatever reason:ONE CF RIFLE.You buy the rifle,inform licensing as usual.What could be simpler?

At present you have authority for lets say for arguments sake,a .243 for AOLQ and have a T3 in mind. On browsing at a game fair you find an immaculate Farquehausen(?) single shot rifle in .308 and fall in love.********! Who benefits by this illogical nonsense?

[Kes]

How much influence has BASC had so far and what has it been ? Have they suggested the charge level would be Ok? If not, what have they said ?

Very good points raised about unnecessary restrictions - are BASC dealing with this or just AOLQ ? Are we thankful to Andy Marsh or would we expect police forces to manage costs properly and to provide an acceptable level of service with an acceptable number of staff ?

There is far too much "I'll bend over you ***** me as often and as much as you like" on this topic.

 

This is a service which is run badly, even indiscriminately with little reflection of the HO Guidelines.

When will shooters get off their knees and stop saying thank you for 100% cost rises?

Yes we love the countryside and shooting but many will be unable to justify, never mind afford such cost increases and this is not the last we have seen.

[subsonicnat]

We shouldn't pay anything in my view . I'm a tax payer and its my right to be able to own firearms so why should we pay anything at all ?

I was watching a program on the British constitution and its never been changed from saying were all allowed a firearm.

We pay the police through are taxs .

Do they invoice the criminals ?

 

You are quite Correct my friend , it has NEVER Been Repealed: Sort of Like American gun Law:

 

Saying this tho I still would pay double as I love my sport and pay 6 times the licence fee to basc

 

£67 a year to basc ( I think )

 

£50 over 5 years for ticket

 

[Dekers]

This is going round in circles and going nowhere, as several have said, let me bend over and you can shaft me, the British mentality.

 

What on earth has paying for BASC, Car tax, TV licence, Fishing Licence, Your **** job on a Fri or your kebab etc., etc., got to do with a FAC/SGC.

 

If anyone wants to pay more then get on with it, when your renewal comes up send them your money and an extra donation because you think its worth it, then perhaps I will not have to!

[JonathanL]

Amongst others,this particular point has been one I have had a bug-bear about for years and have often discussed it with various FEO's.In its present form it makes no logical sense whatsoever.As long as you satisfy the 'good reason' criteria then what difference can it possibly make to the benefit of public safety?You're either fit to posess or you're not.

It's not as if it would be difficuilt to implement either: Authorised to posess for whatever reason:ONE CF RIFLE.You buy the rifle,inform licensing as usual.What could be simpler?

At present you have authority for lets say for arguments sake,a .243 for AOLQ and have a T3 in mind. On browsing at a game fair you find an immaculate Farquehausen(?) single shot rifle in .308 and fall in love.********! Who benefits by this illogical nonsense?

 

Precisely! The man who wanted that rifle would simply apply for a variation to acquire it, which he would be bound to get (and would have got in the first place) and, importantly, would get it at no cost to him (but at a cost to the police), so what is the point of having to make him do it? If you eradicate the need for the variation to begin with then you save the cost to the police from the outset.

 

J.

[Moors Man]

While I agree with many comments regarding value for money. I feel we need to keep in mind the culture we have developed in this country. If the fee is doubled this year for sake of argument, the principle is set. It will soon double again and again and eventually be used as a new method of gun control. Sorry to be so pessimistic sp we must resist.

[CharlieT]

 

Precisely! The man who wanted that rifle would simply apply for a variation to acquire it, which he would be bound to get (and would have got in the first place) and, importantly, would get it at no cost to him (but at a cost to the police), so what is the point of having to make him do it? If you eradicate the need for the variation to begin with then you save the cost to the police from the outset.

 

J.

 

That's too simple and efficient Jonathan. As an interesting aside this is ACPO view on the matter:

 

BANDING SYSTEM

11.1 A general discussion took place regarding banding however, this was considered to be a

relaxing of the current regulations surrounding the possession of Section 1 firearms and

members were not in favour of the system

Action: Mr Dale to feedback the views of ACPO FELWG to Practitioners' Group.

 

And to finally close the matter:

 

Banding System

Action closed - The Practitioners’ Group has been updated on the unfavourable views of

FELWG in relation to a banding system and essentially this would require a change

in primary legislation

 

So it would seem that Andy Marsh is not that keen on simplifying the licensing process !!, only the bits that suit.

 

I find it strange that people are quite happy to throw whatever it costs to obtain their FAC without a thought given to value for money or the basic reasons for charging in the first place.

There is no doubt that many CC's would like to see full cost recovery and bearing in mind that the likes of G4S are hovering in the wings it wouldn't take long for licensing fees to turn into a cash cow

[Steppenwolf]

 

BANDING SYSTEM

11.1 A general discussion took place regarding banding however, this was considered to be a

relaxing of the current regulations surrounding the possession of Section 1 firearms and

members were not in favour of the system

Action: Mr Dale to feedback the views of ACPO FELWG to Practitioners' Group.

 

 

 

Banding System

Action closed - The Practitioners’ Group has been updated on the unfavourable views of

FELWG in relation to a banding system and essentially this would require a change

in primary legislation

 

So it would seem that Andy Marsh is not that keen on simplifying the licensing process !!, only the bits that suit.

 

This is exactly my feeling as well. Simplify some obscure mentoring conditions and maybe allow some people to shoot any quarry, but getting rid of illogical conditions on 1 to 1 variations, types of calibres allowed to be posessed there is a clear negative view of this. Why? Don't they understand it will be actually cheaper for the police, unless my clarifications are correct and the Police and govenrment have a hidden agenda of discouraging firearms ownership. Oh no that would be a conspiracy wouldn't it?

 

Well no acording to the above quotes.

[Paladin]

Some idea of the licensing procedure can be found in a document that the Department of Justice had done in Northern Ireland. I found it whilst trying to understand a price increase without actually understanding how they arrive at a price.

Because I could remember that one Force could process one for about £12.50 some years back.

 

We've all had to negotiate our wage at some time and justify the extra. So why shouldn't the police do the same.

 

I don't think that we should be saying well £xxx sounds OK to me I think that they need them to prove how much it costs. I know that some of you will pay in excess of a thousand pounds for a days shooting and some would be quite happy handing over a blank cheque but it does no good to youngsters or those on a low or fixed income.

 

The one thing that the report showed was that. Admin spent 40 minutes. Processing spent 40 minutes. But the FLO spent 317 minutes! That's over 5 hours? With only 50% having a home visit. I've worked with 'Time and Motion' in the past and would love to see one study that.

 

Those that know me know I'm **** at links.

Google: review firearms licensing fees Northern Ireland There's a pdf file from 2010

[JonathanL]

 

That's too simple and efficient Jonathan. As an interesting aside this is ACPO view on the matter:

 

BANDING SYSTEM

11.1 A general discussion took place regarding banding however, this was considered to be a

relaxing of the current regulations surrounding the possession of Section 1 firearms and

members were not in favour of the system

Action: Mr Dale to feedback the views of ACPO FELWG to Practitioners' Group.

 

And to finally close the matter:

 

Banding System

Action closed - The Practitioners’ Group has been updated on the unfavourable views of

FELWG in relation to a banding system and essentially this would require a change

in primary legislation

 

So it would seem that Andy Marsh is not that keen on simplifying the licensing process !!, only the bits that suit.

 

I find it strange that people are quite happy to throw whatever it costs to obtain their FAC without a thought given to value for money or the basic reasons for charging in the first place.

There is no doubt that many CC's would like to see full cost recovery and bearing in mind that the likes of G4S are hovering in the wings it wouldn't take long for licensing fees to turn into a cash cow

 

I cannot see how placing firearms into various 'bands' in order to simplify things could be considered to be a relaxing of controls. Each firearm must still be authorised on an individual basis subject to the applicant providing good reason to acquire it.

 

The assertion that such an approach would require primary legislation is quite simply incorrect. The requirement that authorisations to acquire firearms are to be made in the way they currently are (by calibre, type, etc) is merely a result of how the application form happens to be worded and not the primary legislation. The form of the application is not defined by the Act, but by rules made under the Act. That being the case, all that is needed is for new rules to be made to alter the form.

 

Having said all that, there is still nothing at present in law to prevent the police from issuing an authority to acquire worded in the fashion of; "One rifle of up to .35 cal suitable for the lawful shooting of deer" or words similar to that which suit the particular situation. The holder is still only being allowed to acquire one firearm and he would would be granted an authority for whichever firearm he eventually decided on in any event!

 

J.

Edited June 13, 2013 by JonathanL

[CharlieT]

 

I cannot see how placing firearms into various 'bands' in order to simplify things could be considered to be a relaxing of controls. Each firearm must still be authorised on an individual basis subject to the applicant providing good reason to acquire it.

 

The assertion that such an approach would require primary legislation is quite simply incorrect. The requirement that authorisations to acquire firearms are to be made in the way they currently are (by calibre, type, etc) is merely a result of how the application form happens to be worded and not the primary legislation. The form of the application is not defined by the Act, but by rules made under the Act. That being the case, all that is needed is for new rules to be made to alter the form.

 

Having said all that, there is still nothing at present in law to prevent the police from issuing an authority to acquire worded in the fashion of; "One rifle of up to .35 cal suitable for the lawful shooting of deer" or words similar to that which suit the particular situation. The holder is still only being allowed to acquire one firearm and he would would be granted an authority for whichever firearm he eventually decided on in any event!

 

J.

So very true.

In my view it only demonstrates how keen the police are on micro managing firearms licensing above and beyond their remit.

[Kes]

I ask again - so what is BASC asking for at the 'Non - practitioner' meetings ?

Has there been any member survey of preferred approach ?

We seem to have some degree of consistency on banding etc - why is this not BASC policy? Or is the cart leading the horse here?

[David BASC]

We have been asking for consistency and efficiency and have not accepted or agreed to any increase at all.

 

No there has been no survey save for the one on licence forms last year.

 

 

We stress that we cannot condone paying for an inefficient service, its as simple as that.

 

 

Removing silly conditions that only waste time and opening up sec 1 to any lawful quarry are great steps forward to keep costs down, but there is a long way to go in terms of consistency and efficiency

 

David

 

 

[kdubya]

I have just, literally yesterday renewed my ticket, they sent the paperwork I filled it in, the FLO (very decent chap) spent half an hour talking, plus checking guns ammo cabinets etc

then checked my paperwork was OK etc and took it to be processed (which If as per norm will take no time whatsoever) so considering it would have set him back at least an hour possibly more depending where he had been before me and where he was going after, then the FLD will process and knock up my ticket for another FIVE years for £50 which means they do it for nowt and double is still for nowt. so stop whinging, if you cant afford it try origami instead.(using pre-used paper of course)

 

 

KW

[HDAV]

The costs for some forces are the subject of some FOI requests and it seems to vary massivley by force £200k for South Wales £2 million for the MET! for what i have seen published.......

 

OF course APCO dont want any loosening of the restrictions they just want more money and less certificates to process........

 

 

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/apr_2013/2013020002097.pdf

 

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/information/documents/cache/PDF/Document7489_940901.pdf

 

http://www.south-wales.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Response-123_13.pdf

 

 

Q1 The total cost of running the firearms licensing department

Q2 The income derived from fees for grant, renewal and variation of

certificates for each of the years ending 31st March 2012, 31st March

2011 and 31st March 2010. Where year end is not 31st March please

provide figures for year end and state what it is.

Please find the information requested in the table below.

Cost of Unit Income Received

from fees

2009/10 £1,016,046 £182,487

2010/11 £816,510 £298,417

2011/12 £720,841 £296,051

Edited June 13, 2013 by HDAV

[al4x]

Herts and beds might be interesting in the future with doing away with a lot of home visits and renewing by phone the costs should be minimal compared to some. Its interesting they haven't mentioned co-terminous as that is where they can make a fair difference if they treat each one individually for charging

[David BASC]

Some forces costs may be high or higher than others due to inefficient practice, this is a significant problem. There is no point in throwing money at an inefficient system to try and 'fix it'. A common way of licencing, with a common approach to conditions, and consistency in following ACPO best practice would deliver greater efficiency.

 

 

If ACPO simply wanted to make more money, as alleged above, they would be recommending significantly more for a licence fee than they are

 

David