licensing fee increase veto

JabaliHunter

Well-Known Member
Don't think this has been discussed - it is not new...

Read in the shooting Times that an apparent deal between the Home Office, shooting organisations and the police to increase license renewal fees was vetoed by the Prime Minister. What surprised me was not the veto, but the suggestion by Diana Johnson MP that money currently set aside for firearms licensing “could put hundreds of police officers back on the beat” and the ST statement that if the licence fee did increase, it has not been stated how the current firearms licensing budget would be re-distributed within police forces.

ST article David Cameron vetoes increase in licensing fees - Shooting UK
and
Sunday Times article Deerstalker PM shoots down police over rise in firearms fee | The Sunday Times

So my question is really what is going on? Assuming the reporting is correct (big assumption), how have the shooting sports organisations managed to agree a proposal to increase license fees without getting it set in stone that the increase would be used to increase licensing service efficiency (not general policing efficiency) ?

If this is really what is behind the PM's veto, then good for him! Or is it actually the case that the "Senior government sources" referred to in the ST article were actually misrepresenting the shooting organisations' position?

Anybody care to comment? I am sure there is more to the story that these two reports suggest...
 
I've no idea, but I raised an eyebrow when I read the piece. As you suggest there must be more to it than is being reported. As a general principle, I'd be happy to pay more to make it more efficient. I'm equally comfortable with full cost recovery. Shooting is for most folk a hobby, the general public shouldn't be subsidising it.
 
I wouldnt personally mind paying more on renewal, or for variations BUT I think before they start asking for more money from us, they also need to look at how parts of the current law cost them hours of unneeded admin, and I would imagine Alot of money each year. For example the whole variation thing for a change of moderator, more than likely to be done on a one for one basis, they see no revenue from these variations and it must take up hours and hours on admin every year, why cant they make thinks simpler. I understand if we wish to change a firearm then a variation is fine but a does a change of mod really require a variation? Or is it just me that feels this way?
 
I wouldnt personally mind paying more on renewal, or for variations BUT I think before they start asking for more money from us, they also need to look at how parts of the current law cost them hours of unneeded admin, and I would imagine Alot of money each year. For example the whole variation thing for a change of moderator, more than likely to be done on a one for one basis, they see no revenue from these variations and it must take up hours and hours on admin every year, why cant they make thinks simpler. I understand if we wish to change a firearm then a variation is fine but a does a change of mod really require a variation? Or is it just me that feels this way?

If licensing law were to be treated like a building, it would have a demolition order on it.
 
The police service gets publically funded to provide a service and part of that includes firearms licensing. There are loads of examples where they provide a service to sections of the public free of charge so why are firearms licence holders penalised by being charged?
Plus if the system is made more efficient they might not have to raise charges.
 
It seems to me that the priority -assuming the current system is regarded by the HO and ACPO as unaffordable - is to identify which parts of the process are neither required by law nor contribute in a significant way to public safety in their current form, and can therefore be dispensed with to leave a more streamlined but still effective licensing system; and what technological resources can be introduced to reduce the burden of paperwork on the licensing authorities. The specific improvements that might be made have been enumerated in several threads on here so I won't go into them.

The next step would be to agree on minimum service levels and on the appropriate type of sanctions against the licensing authority / compensation for the service user (us) to be made in the event these are not met.

Once it is known what is possible, what is necessary, what is achievable, and how quality of service can be assured, it should be feasible to work out what it would cost.

Only at this point should a debate about who should meet that cost, and in what proportion, be entered into. Until then the whole thing is mere haggling over a pig in a poke.

In terms of outcomes, I'd like to see a good service that gets better and more cost-effective as numbers of certificates issued rises, so that is in the interest of the licensing agency to facilitate rather than obstruct the lawful objectives of the service user; and any fees set at a level no higher than what someone on, say, 2/3 of the national average income might reasonably be expected to afford.
 
Last edited:
Very timely - just had an FEO visit for new FAC. For £60-00 or frankly £160 there is no way they are covering their costs.

FEO out to land to pass for deer calibre (tick)
FEO out to home to assess security, justification and fitness to possess (tick)
FEO reference checks
FEO club membership check for target use, zeroing etc. and are you a full member
FEO Doctors check
FEO partner check
FEO criminal check / offences etc.
FEO report
Management decision to check quality of his / her work - all the paperwork and certification

By the way hell of a nice guy added 222 250 + Mod to .308 application re: AOLQ. No mentoring clause. Helped grant massively that I had land and doing DSC 1 in October.

Mentioned that licences are going electronic but wasnt aware of details of this and yes he believes fees will increase / they have to.

How much is the cheapest single stalk? Hey the licence fee is an absolute bargain.
 
Last edited:
I've no idea, but I raised an eyebrow when I read the piece. As you suggest there must be more to it than is being reported. As a general principle, I'd be happy to pay more to make it more efficient. I'm equally comfortable with full cost recovery. Shooting is for most folk a hobby, the general public shouldn't be subsidising it.

I don't want this to start another "who should pay" argument but an FAC and the licencing behind it is for public protection, ie stop the wrong people from having a licence. Who benefits from this? The public. Those who have firearms legally don't benefit any more than the general public. We're paying (more than the general public) in order to prove we're suitable to carry out a perfectly legal activity whilst those who apply and are rejected don't have to pay for the admin costs involved.


A driving licence works out at £2 a year and passport at £7 a year (much less that an FAC of SGC at £10 a year) yet I appreciate that obviously the true costs are subsidised by tax payers but as part of the system bad/unsafe, illegal drivers are dealt with (maybe not in the best way but thats another topic) in order to keep me safe and the rest of the public so I don't begrudge that part of my tax goes into funding the DVLA.


If FAC/SGC holders believe that we have these licences as a privilige and should be "lucky" to have such a cheap hobby at £10 a year (for such a poorly managed service) then we don't have much hope of keeping costs low.
 
That's one way of looking at it. Another is you have just paid £60 for a piece of paper that allows you to carry out an activity that is perfectly legal and yet hasn't benefitted you in any way. It is there to satisfy the police you're not going to be a danger to the public so the people benefitting are the public.
 
Sorry I just dont get the Driving Licence point-:

The average cost of a driving lesson is now £24, and with the DSA (Driving Standards Agency) recommending 47 hours of tuition under the supervision of a professional instructor, the total cost of lessons for a learner will be £1,128.

OK I accept that a learner is paying a professional for his / her teaching expertise but the true cost of a driving licence must include some training as not many pass without lessons.
 
Yes but you don't HAVE to pay for lessons (taught by parents etc) and the cost of the lessons goes to the driving instructor not the DVLA who issue the licence.

You're talking about associated costs, whereas I'm talking about the costs (£20 for a driving licence) of administering the licence and all the checks that go with it.

The point I am trying to make is you NEED the licence to drive or to own firearms (or other restricted items) and its the cost of that licence and where the funding comes from.

If I didn't HAVE to have an FAC but could buy firearms and other restricted items as I chose then what benefit would an FAC offer me? None, it is there to show the public that I'm safe enough to own such items.
 
Very timely - just had an FEO visit for new FAC. For £60-00 or frankly £160 there is no way they are covering their costs.

FEO out to land to pass for deer calibre (tick)
FEO out to home to assess security, justification and fitness to possess (tick)
FEO reference checks
FEO club membership check for target use, zeroing etc. and are you a full member
FEO Doctors check
FEO partner check
FEO criminal check / offences etc.
FEO report
Management decision to check quality of his / her work - all the paperwork and certification

By the way hell of a nice guy added 222 250 + Mod to .308 application re: AOLQ. No mentoring clause. Helped grant massively that I had land and doing DSC 1 in October.

Mentioned that licences are going electronic but wasnt aware of details of this and yes he believes fees will increase / they have to.

How much is the cheapest single stalk? Hey the licence fee is an absolute bargain.

Let's get the cost of the fees right ....... my force's web-site .......

Firearms Certificates (Valid for 5 years)

Fee payable

Grant of Firearm Certificate
£50.00
Renewal of Firearm Certificate
£40.00
Variation of a firearm certificate (other than when it is renewed at the same time) to increase the number of firearms included on the certificate.
£26.00
Replacement of a firearm certificate which has been lost or destroyed
£9.00


You're a novice so need the full range of checks. On a cost recovery basis you should be paying more. With the kit you've got you can also well afford it. You're at the top end of the spectrum that the myopic Norman Baker is viewing, so in your case his justification for a £200 charge is understandable.

In my case, which is typical of established shooters (it's an ageing population statistically) very few of these checks are needed. The FLD are presented with continued same land approval or club membership in writing, a crime-free history, the same number of known firearms on the FAC, etc. ........... so what's to check, and where are the rising admin costs?

Firearms licensing is balanced out over 2,500 FAC holders in my County. There haven't been any new legal requirements, and the number of licensing staff have actually diminished ...... so I don't see why the fees should rise at all.
 
Last edited:
Concurrent with shot gun £60-00.

Yes as a new application more checks.

Dont start the you can afford it argument because you will loose. Not that its anybodies damn business but I sold some inherited jewellery to buy my kit! :dummy:
 
Concurrent with shot gun £60-00.

Yes as a new application more checks.

Dont start the you can afford it argument because you will loose. Not that its anybodies damn business but I sold some inherited jewellery to buy my kit! :dummy:

Sorry you had to pawn your tiara. :D

I was actually illustrating the conflicting stereotypes that both camps have used.

Unless the extra revenue raised from a FAC fees increase was ring-fenced for FLD's then it would be destined to restore depleted 'general policing' budgets. I suspect this was the political reasoning behind No 10's refusal to back it, rather than Cameron's alleged affinity for fieldsports.
 
Sorry you had to pawn your tiara. :D

I was actually illustrating the conflicting stereotypes that both camps have used.

Unless the extra revenue raised from a FAC fees increase was ring-fenced for FLD's then it would be destined to restore depleted 'general policing' budgets. I suspect this was the political reasoning behind No 10's refusal to back it, rather than Cameron's alleged affinity for fieldsports.

I'm surprised that with the current cut backs it hasn't increased and it probably should - although I wouldn't particularly want it to.

Take your figures of 2500 FC holders (assuming there are no more applications and not doing of renewals over 5 years as it makes the maths simple), that's £150000 overall in fee's for the five year period for co-terminous. So £30000 a year.

I'm assuming that there are say two members of civilian admin staff in that department doing a lot of the work salaried at say £18000 a year each before anyone leaves the office or puts a light on and its easy to see why it is argued they should rise, you may not like it but that's the reality.

I pay the same a month to the BBC for my tv licence that I do per year for my FAC, I know what is better value for money!!
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with recovering actual costs is that as long as individual forces operate the system we'll all end up paying different amounts for the same thing.

It really needs to be centralised and go electronic, we need to have a credit card sized FAC with the info on a barcode or magnetic strip and "general" slots the result of which would be that you can go to your local gunshop, sell your .223, immediately open your ".22 centre fire" slot and maybe buy a .22-250 in a single transaction.
 
I have a couple of points on this:

1. If we accept the fact that it costs more to administer and issue the FAC/SGC licensing system than certificate holders are paying then money is clearly coming out of the general police budget. If we paid the true cost of the certificate then there would be more money left in the general police 'pot' to spend on other things. In 2012 there were 141,820 FACs and 562,696 SGCs out there. If the fees rose to £200/5 years that is a potential yield of over £105 million pounds (based on +£150) in 5 years or £21 million pounds per year, or a budgetary increase to the police of 1.75%! Quite a significant chunk of money.

2. Personally as I chose to have a FAC and SGC for my personal pleasure (and work) I do think it is fair we pay full costs.

3. There should be minimum levels of service. My greatest fear is that if we were all the same we'd be dragged down to the lowest common denominator rather than brought up to the best performing forces level. North Yorkshire are great and I would hate to see the service reduce - variations take a week on average. Friendly staff, treat us guys like adults. The simplest option would be fines to each force for under performance.
 
Back
Top