BASC updates on firearms licensing fees hike

[Conor O'Gorman]

The latest BASC podcast provides an in-depth review of what BASC is doing on firearms licensing and fees from Christopher Graffius (executive director of communications and public affairs) and Martin Parker (head of firearms). 

https://basc.org.uk/podcast/

There are also updates in the latest issue of Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/basc-lobbying-pccs-on-funds-150069/

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/will-the-fees-hike-improve-licensing-150081/

There are still two ways you can help:

1. Complete a survey

BASC has put together a short survey to gather your experiences of the renewal and/or grant application process with your local police force.

https://basc.org.uk/licensing-survey/

2. Contact your MP

The proposed increases to firearms licensing fees damage the countryside. You can help by writing to your MP.

https://basc.org.uk/fight-for-a-fair-deal-on-firearms-licensing-fees/

 

 

Edited February 3 by Conor O'Gorman

[Conor O'Gorman]

Government’s justification for firearms fees increase ‘bogus’, says BASC
 

BASC wrote to all Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables in England and Wales, who are responsible for setting police budgets, to ask for assurances that funds raised will be used to resource their firearms licensing departments.

 

On the day the new fees came into effect, Wednesday 5 February, only seven out of 42 constabularies had committed to guaranteeing the funds would go towards improving firearms licensing.

 

Christopher Graffius, BASC’s executive director of communications and public affairs, said: “The government’s justification for the increase is that the extra funds raised will go to support the work of firearms licensing departments, although it has no powers to ensure this happens.

 

“If they cannot guarantee that the money from fee increases will improve the system, then the government’s reasoning for a 133 per cent hike in firearms fees is bogus. People will be paying more for a service that continues to be inefficient.

 

“Inefficient licensing puts guns in the hands of the wrong people, it puts public safety at risk.”

 

https://basc.org.uk/governments-justification-for-firearms-fees-increase-bogus-says-basc/

 

[eightlittlebits]

5 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

On the day the new fees came into effect, Wednesday 5 February, only seven out of 42 constabularies had committed to guaranteeing the funds would go towards improving firearms licensing.

I guess the obvious question is which ones?

Of the remaining 35 did they not respond at all or actually respond that they would not be using/ringfencing the increased fees to improve firearms licensing?

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 hours ago, eightlittlebits said:

I guess the obvious question is which ones?

Of the remaining 35 did they not respond at all or actually respond that they would not be using/ringfencing the increased fees to improve firearms licensing?

I will find out.

Edited Friday at 12:02 by Conor O'Gorman

[Conor O'Gorman]

Suffolk MPs sign letter against rises in shotgun licence fee

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24911827.suffolk-mps-sign-letter-rises-shotgun-licence-fee/

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

On 06/02/2025 at 23:07, eightlittlebits said:

I guess the obvious question is which ones?

So far seven police forces have guaranteed that all, or at least some, of the increased firearms licensing fee funds would go towards improving firearms licensing. These forces are:

• Cheshire
• Dorset
• Gloucestershire
• Leicestershire
• Norfolk
• Staffordshire
• West Mercia

[TIGHTCHOKE]

A GOOD start, Thank you BASC.

A damned shame they feel it is okay to state "at least some".

I strongly suspect they will be unaccountable and we will see VERY little improvement of the broken system but will paying massively more for the same POOR service.

[scarecrow243]

will you please STOP putting this phrase  “Inefficient licensing puts guns in the hands of the wrong people, it puts public safety at risk.”      as it's saying guns are in the wrong hands now because it takes the police to long to do certificates 

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 hours ago, scarecrow243 said:

will you please STOP putting this phrase  “Inefficient licensing puts guns in the hands of the wrong people, it puts public safety at risk.”      as it's saying guns are in the wrong hands now because it takes the police to long to do certificates 

Thanks, I will pass that onto colleagues, it is ambiguous in meaning as 'inefficient' can mean not done quick enough and also a failure to make the best use of time or resources. It was the latter that was an issue within Devon & Cornwall FLD in the context of the Plymouth murders - the investigation findings included that the force did not have robust systems in place concerning the training of firearms licensing staff, or to ensure decisions were made at the correct level, a catastrophic failure in the management of the department, with a lack of managerial supervision, inadequate and ineffective leadership.

Edited yesterday at 14:55 by Conor O'Gorman

[Genghis]

On 10/02/2025 at 11:34, Conor O'Gorman said:

So far seven police forces have guaranteed that all, or at least some, of the increased firearms licensing fee funds would go towards improving firearms licensing. These forces are:

• Cheshire
• Dorset
• Gloucestershire
• Leicestershire
• Norfolk
• Staffordshire
• West Mercia

Not surprised with Cheshire. They’ve always provided an excellent service and are happy to answer any enquiries quickly.

[Conor O'Gorman]

On 10/02/2025 at 12:05, TIGHTCHOKE said:

A GOOD start, Thank you BASC.

A damned shame they feel it is okay to state "at least some".

I strongly suspect they will be unaccountable and we will see VERY little improvement of the broken system but will paying massively more for the same POOR service.

Thank you. By way of update we have still had no reply from Bedfordshire, Cornwall, Devon & Cornwall, Durham, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire. Metropolitan, South Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. No force has said they would not ringfence the funds. However, one force Leicestershire has said they would only partially ring fence and we are seeking clarity on this. We have also had positive responses from more police forces – funds will also be ringfenced by Derbyshire, Essex, Hampshire and North Yorkshire.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Thank you for the update.

Disappointing that some departments are too busy to answer the question.

[eightlittlebits]

As Tightchoke has said it's disappointing that they've not all replied but it's encouraging to see that those that have replied do at least seem to be on board with directing the funding to where it's intended.

[Newbie to this]

8 hours ago, eightlittlebits said:

As Tightchoke has said it's disappointing that they've not all replied but it's encouraging to see that those that have replied do at least seem to be on board with directing the funding to where it's intended.

Have they? The word 'some' has been used. 1p is 'some' of the increased fees.

Do not trust them as far as you can throw them. It should have been mandatory.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

Have they? The word 'some' has been used. 1p is 'some' of the increased fees.

Do not trust them as far as you can throw them. It should have been mandatory.

If only that were possible.

[eightlittlebits]

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Have they? The word 'some' has been used. 1p is 'some' of the increased fees.

It's how I read the following.

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

No force has said they would not ringfence the funds. However, one force Leicestershire has said they would only partially ring fence and we are seeking clarity on this. We have also had positive responses from more police forces – funds will also be ringfenced by Derbyshire, Essex, Hampshire and North Yorkshire.

I read that as none that initially replied have said the funds would not be ringfenced, one has said only partially though. 4 more have since positively replied that funds will be ringfenced.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Surely the new funds would either be "ring fenced" or not, there is not an in between, they are SUPPOSEDLY there to improve the poor service, NOT pay for other police shortcomings.

[Conor O'Gorman]

I will rephrase it as follows:

Holding replies in from most forces. 

No reply from Bedfordshire, Cornwall, Devon & Cornwall, Durham, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire. Metropolitan, South Yorkshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

The following forces commit to ringfence all funds to FLD: Cheshire, Derbyshire, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Staffordshire, West Mercia. 

Leicestershire has said they would only partially ring fence and we are seeking clarity on this.

[Scully]

For years the upper echelons have been bleating on about ‘full cost recovery’ for the process of firearms licensing, and now they’ve got it each and every force should be using it for that purpose and we should see a much improved service. 
Using it for anything other than its intended purpose would be a despicable act of deceit. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 minutes ago, Scully said:

For years the upper echelons have been bleating on about ‘full cost recovery’ for the process of firearms licensing, and now they’ve got it each and every force should be using it for that purpose and we should see a much improved service. 
Using it for anything other than its intended purpose would be a despicable act of deceit. 

Absolutely and that is what BASC is trying to ensure, and continued political pressure via people contacting their MPs is most helpful and many are doing that, but as you know from your own efforts with your contacts, always not nearly enough.