BASC calls for independent regulatory body for firearms licensing

[Conor O'Gorman]

A “largely unprofessional, overburdened and poorly resourced police licensing service puts public safety at risk”, BASC has told a Home Affairs Committee inquiry into policing priorities.

BASC’s written submission to the inquiry is a broad sweeping critique of the current situation across the 43 firearms licensing departments in England and Wales.

The inquiry is focusing on the state of policing in England and Wales, highlighting low public confidence and damaging high-profile cases. It will examine what a modern police service should look like and how to ensure the highest standards amongst police officers.

BASC’s submission, which has now been published, concludes:

“Firearms licensing is in crisis. The 43 licensing authorities in England and Wales are unable to manage their workload, with some refusing to process grants and many taking more than a year to process renewals. A largely unprofessional, overburdened and poorly resourced police licensing service puts public safety at risk.”

https://basc.org.uk/firearms-licensing-is-in-crisis-basc-tells-parliamentary-committee-inquiry/ 

[Gordon R]

An annual licence and assessment for those processing Firearms licences. I can't see how that could slow things down. 🙂

It would require more personnel and more expenditure, which I would expect to be passed on to applicants. In BASC's view, just how long will it take to establish the scheme and get it up and running? What increase in the cost of a licence would BASC expect?

Edited January 18, 2023 by Gordon R

[old man]

Farmed out to the likes of G4S or similar performing lot, what could possibly go wrong?

This is totally wrong IMHO.

To give this vital function to any other than the Police, poor though they may be in certain areas, would be a massive step too far and total loss of control?

[wymberley]

This is why the Chief Constable's (CC) signature is on your SGC/FAC:

"You must also prove to the chief officer of police that you’re allowed to have a firearms certificate and pose no danger to public safety or to the peace. 

We must take it that having been granted either/both a FAC/SGC you must have shown that the above is the case, but we'll come back to that.

So, what is a Firearms Licensing Officer; is there one or several per force area - such that perhaps there is one Firearms Department manager but several Firearms Licensing Officers as distinct from our friendly FEOs?

Now, the CC cannot be individually responsible for each and every certificate issued - he'd never get anything else done - but he is signing to accept that he is satisfied that all the Force procedures have been properly carried out and have revealed no impediment to the granting of any certificate.

So that's his escape route when and if one becomes necessary.

I don't understand why such accreditation action is now suddenly deemed necessary anyway. However, surely, first things first. Where you have  any "largely unprofessional, overburdened and poorly resourced" organisation the primary aim must be to correct those deficiencies prior to anything else. Then and only then can you ensure that the staff where appropriate have the wherewithal to successfully withstand the trauma of any annual accreditation review.

After all, what's good for the goose.................

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 

 

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Farmed out to the likes of G4S or similar performing lot, what could possibly go wrong?

This is totally wrong IMHO.

To give this vital function to any other than the Police, poor though they may be in certain areas, would be a massive step too far and total loss of control?

Agree here 

give all our details to a firm that’s not accountable that’s probably going to sell all your details totally wrong 

just train the police to do the job properly and run it efficiently 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Connor, why have BASC not gone to their Membership to debate this before making a move?

I am very happy with my Licensing Authority, they do good work.

[Old farrier]

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Connor, why have BASC not gone to their Membership to debate this before making a move?

I am very happy with my Licensing Authority, they do good work.

So am I always found them very helpful even in difficult times (covid)

very disappointed not to be asked (again )before a move is made to change a system that works well in a lot of areas 

 

[Scully]

25 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Connor, why have BASC not gone to their Membership to debate this before making a move?

I am very happy with my Licensing Authority, they do good work.

Knowing the likelihood of a response of members based on previous history, to be less than 1%, they probably thought it a waste of time! 😀

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Knowing the likelihood of a response of members based on previous history, to be less than 1%, they probably thought it a waste of time! 😀

All the more reasons to give the 1% the opportunity 

 

[enfieldspares]

I have never had a issue with Leicestershire Police being anything but 100% straight in how their firearms licensing department operates.

[Dave at kelton]

I seem to have read this differently to the rest of you and perhaps Connor will comment.

I read this as an independent body overseeing the individual Firsrms departments and it those departments that are subject to annual review and accreditation. If I am correct that is vastly different to what you have all commented on above. If that body reported directly to the Home Secretary it would make a lot of sense in my view.

[Robden]

 Well done BASC, get the general public worried and call for a stop on all grants and renewals until/if it gets sorted. 

[Charliedog]

Suffolk still works fine, if they can manage a fairly straight forward process then all others should be able to aswell, not the brightest statement from BASC in my opinion.

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Old farrier said:

All the more reasons to give the 1% the opportunity 

 

Not much of a glowing endorsement on which to base policy though, eh! Even if that less than 1% agreed!  🙂

We must surely be the laughing stock of all who oppose what we do. Embarrassing doesn’t quite sum it up really. 
 

[Old farrier]

28 minutes ago, Scully said:

Not much of a glowing endorsement on which to base policy though, eh! Even if that less than 1% agreed!  🙂

We must surely be the laughing stock of all who oppose what we do. Embarrassing doesn’t quite sum it up really. 
 

And the solution is?? 
 

ignore the members but take the subscription and do whatever they like with it 🤷🏿‍♂️

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Not much of a glowing endorsement on which to base policy though, eh! Even if that less than 1% agreed!  🙂

We must surely be the laughing stock of all who oppose what we do. Embarrassing doesn’t quite sum it up really. 
 

Deservedly so if we've foregone - as has just been mentioned - the ability to read and inwardly digest as used to be said.

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

I seem to have read this differently to the rest of you and perhaps Connor will comment.

I read this as an independent body overseeing the individual Firsrms departments and it those departments that are subject to annual review and accreditation. If I am correct that is vastly different to what you have all commented on above. If that body reported directly to the Home Secretary it would make a lot of sense in my view.

Thanks, yes that is correct.

BASC's proposal is about setting up an independent regulatory body to oversee the firearms licensing function carried out by each police force in England and Wales to ensure that this function is being consistently and effectively carried out – not to replace the firearms licensing function of the police but rather having oversight of that function and holding police forces to account where there are failings.

In our submission we highlighted the following:

• Provide adequate fiscal and human resources for its Firearms Licensing Units (FLUs).
• Employ properly trained, expert staff within those units.
• Abolish non-standard administrative practices which fall outside the Home Office Statutory Guidance, 2021.
• Achieve consistency of administrative practice which conforms to the Home Office document; “Firearms Licensing: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police.” (2021
• Adopt a risk-assessed and managed licensing regime as opposed to a risk-averse one.
• FLUs should be subject to Service Level Agreements.
• Incorporate proper mechanisms for stakeholder involvement and feedback.
• FLUs must be answerable to a central policy unit (akin to the Forensic Science Regulator). This unit must have statutory powers to compel compliance.
• Firearms Licensing Units must be inspected as part of a force’s PEEL inspection.
• Regional co-operation and eventual amalgamation between FLUs should be strongly promoted.

Click link below to read the full submission

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/113007/html/

[Scully]

5 hours ago, Old farrier said:

 

ignore the members but take the subscription and do whatever they like with it 🤷🏿‍♂️

Well isn’t that what they’re already doing? 
None were consulted about the so called voluntary phase out of lead; none have been consulted about the proposed lead shot ban, and none have been consulted about this!
It’s not a democracy.
When was the last time the BASC membership was consulted about anything? Proposed policy or otherwise? 

Personally I think it’s the start of what could become a good idea if properly implemented and licensing authorities were truly held accountable, but the latter will never happen. 
It’s not really much of a system really currently is it, where the issuing body has an agenda at odds with implementation? Not that this proposal would alter that agenda, but it may help with a lack of will to provide a service. 

[Gordon R]

Connor and Dave at kelton - I think everyone appears to have grasped the point, but you appear to be saying we have missed something. 

Are Firearms staff going to be trained to an accredited level and subject to annual check, by an independent body? Has BASC costed this out and considered the effect on licence fees?

If yes, can we have the results. If no, why not?

[enfieldspares]

54 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Are Firearms staff going to be trained to an accredited level and subject to annual check, by an independent body?

Maybe trained like the equivalent of DSC 1 and DSC 2? Or accredited to something like the British Game Alliance offers accreditation to shoots? Oh...now wait...and who is involved either directly or indirectly with both the DSC "system" and in seed funding the BGA? Oh, yes, it's BASC isn't it. 

[Dave at kelton]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Connor and Dave at kelton - I think everyone appears to have grasped the point, but you appear to be saying we have missed something. 

Are Firearms staff going to be trained to an accredited level and subject to annual check, by an independent body? Has BASC costed this out and considered the effect on licence fees?

If yes, can we have the results. If no, why not?

Everyone has not grasped the point or there would not have been comments about farming out to G4S. This about making those forces that are patently not performing accountable which on face they are not. From previous experience Thames Valley were woeful but Police Scotland great. There have been enough posts on here over the last few years bemoaning poor service but when BASC try to improve it they are lambasted.

There should one high standard across all forces and as I see it that is what BASC are attempting to achieve, which I for one applaud.

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

Everyone has not grasped the point or there would not have been comments about farming out to G4S. This about making those forces that are patently not performing accountable which on face they are not. From previous experience Thames Valley were woeful but Police Scotland great. There have been enough posts on here over the last few years bemoaning poor service but when BASC try to improve it they are lambasted.

There should one high standard across all forces and as I see it that is what BASC are attempting to achieve, which I for one applaud.

 Far better than leaving a currently appaling situation to fester and get even worse. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

If I am correct that is vastly different to what you have all commented on above. 

Dave - you said "all", not some.

[wymberley]

There is a need for BASC members to be careful what they wish for. The last thing shooters need is for any of their representative bodies to put themselves into a position whereby because of a condition of privy they are unable to speak out when they should. In the unlikely event that there is any doubt about the way things are shaping up and the potential for severely restrictive licensing regulations in the future, one can do no better than have a look at "Plymouth Live" on t'net and the shooting inquest which is going out pretty much 'live'.

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

There is a need for BASC members to be careful what they wish for. The last thing shooters need is for any of their representative bodies to put themselves into a position whereby because of a condition of privy they are unable to speak out when they should. In the unlikely event that there is any doubt about the way things are shaping up and the potential for severely restrictive licensing regulations in the future, one can do no better than have a look at "Plymouth Live" on t'net and the shooting inquest which is going out pretty much 'live'.

There's a lovely dichotomy between the 'BASC should consult its members' mindset and the lack of responses to the consultations and questionnaires they sends out....