NGO Anger at Proposed Firearms Fees Rise of 88%

10 December 2011

The National Gamekeepers' Organisation (NGO) has reacted angrily to proposals that the cost of firearm and shot gun certificates should rise by 88%, three times the rate of inflation since the current fees were set in 2001.

The huge increases are proposed in a paper prepared for the Home Office by the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO FELWG). They would put up the cost of obtaining a firearm or shot gun certificate from £50 to £93.80 (88%). Certificate renewals would rise from £40 to £66, an increase of 65%. Completely new charges would be introduced for licensing clay shoots and other purposes. The increases are based on a new concept of 'full cost recovery' from the licence holder.

The ACPO FELWG paper claims, "Firearms licensing is not a part of core policing duties and therefore the cost of firearms licensing should not be borne by the public purse."

In fact the licensing of firearms has been a police duty, by law, since 1920 and ACPO's own paper acknowledges that, "The primary objective of the firearms licensing process is to protect the public from harm."

A spokesman for the NGO said:

"The licensing of firearms and shot guns is to keep the public safe. It has no benefit to the licence holder. Licensees have always paid about a third of the overall cost, which is more than their share for a system designed for the public benefit. Governments have accepted that the balance should come from central funds. For the police to argue now that licensing is not a police duty when legislation has required them to undertake it since 1920 is simply extraordinary. Whenever anyone has suggested that a civilian authority could be a more appropriate vehicle for licensing, the police have always insisted on retaining responsibility." 

The NGO went on:

"In recent months the licensing process in many police force areas has become shambolic. Certificate renewals are running more than six months behind and some forces are developing their own licensing policies contrary to Home Office and ACPO guidance. Others have been telling our members not to worry that their certificates are late, despite its being an absolute offence to be in possession of firearms without a valid certificate. These police forces are effectively telling our members, without any authority to do so, that it is OK for them to break a law which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison."

The ACPO FELWG paper does acknowledge that there are some licensing backlogs, blaming this on "efficiencies" made in certain force areas in response to the current period of austerity. The NGO says this is no excuse for failure to apply the law fairly and effectively.

"Firearms licensing is woefully inefficient in some force areas and savings could easily be made, not least by the police sticking to the guidance issued by the Home Office. This is what ACPO FELWG should be addressing, looking to cut costs rather than passing them on to hard-pressed gun users. The ‘full cost recovery' proposal in this paper would be a charter for inefficiency, with no incentive for errant police forces to amend their ways."

Acting on behalf of its members, many of whom shoot on modest incomes, the NGO has written to the Policing Minister, Nick Herbert MP, urging that the ACPO FELWG fee proposals are rejected by Government. The NGO's letter said, "Frankly if the fees are increased without a really serious move to sort out unfair and sloppy administration by the police, there will be real anger in the countryside. If best practice was followed, particularly in relation to routine renewals, then surely there would be savings to be made."

The NGO also asked Mr Herbert why there are no representatives of gun users on the ACPO FELWG committee, suggesting that if there were, flawed proposals like these would be less likely to see the light of day. The Minister's response is awaited.

Earlier this year the NGO submitted to Government a dossier of inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the administration of the Firearms Act. It urged that existing Home Office Guidance be made mandatory so that the police have to apply one set of rules consistently and efficiently throughout the country. It also suggested that in the long run, firearms licensing could be more efficient if carried out by a dedicated, independent authority, with the added benefit of freeing up police time so officers can concentrate on fighting crime. No response has been forthcoming.

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

• 1. The Firearms Act 1968 requires anyone wanting a firearm or shot gun to apply for a certificate from their local police force. The current fees for these certificates were last revised in 2001, since when inflation has risen by 29% according to the Consumer Price Index.

• 2. The ACPO FELWG paper, which is a public document circulated for comment, makes comparisons with TV licences and those for catching migratory fish. These comparisons are flawed. Licence fees collected from fishermen by the Environment Agency are used to improve river quality and thus benefit the angler. TV licence fees are used by the BBC to provide programmes for the licence holder to enjoy. Fees charged for firearms certificates, on the other hand, are simply soaked up in administration and whilst there is an overall benefit to the safety of the public, there is no benefit whatever to the individual licence holder.

• 3. Some police forces are administering the Firearms Act in a timely manner, consistent with Home Office guidance and ACPO advice but up to 500 NGO members each year phone in having experienced delays or improper decisions made by their local police forces. This is from a membership of 16,000 of whom about a third will be renewing their certificates in any one year, suggesting that problems are widespread. ACPO FELWG acknowledges that all is not well and its paper does make some good suggestions about online applications, automated checking of data and other improvements to speed up administration. These the NGO welcomes. It is the fee increases suggested in the paper that the NGO opposes, not least because of the flawed logic which underlies them.