full cost recovery for issue of certicates

[joe]

Why didn't any of pro shooting mp's bring those points up ? !

[dromia]

Does this mean that we'll see FAC issues / variations concluded in a timely and professional manner?

[dromia]

Why didn't any of pro shooting mp's bring those points up ? !

Have you asked them?

[Christel]

Was this subject not addressed last year or was it the year before, I loose track. Thought it had been solved, that the fees we are seeing now is it?

[dromia]

We were shafted then because part of that agreement was that plod could regularly review and increase the fees.

[Christel]

So basically here we go again

[dromia]

Absolutely.

When have any of our "national" bodies ever had a discussion with their membership as to what their position on firearms legislation should be?

You have a few disconnected, vested interest, virtually unaccountable it seems, individuals making deals with with plod and the homeoffice on our behalf without asking for our support. They go into darkened rooms like 1960s trade unions/employers and come out with a "deal" that we have to swallow.

[Sandgroper]

Reading through the Bill (both amended and original) as well as Hansard from the 26/4, the fees they are talking about are for Section 5 permits and approved clubs. Full cost recovery for FAC/SGC was only mentioned as an Opposition amendment, from Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP -

I would like to spend 30 seconds on the Opposition’s amendments on full cost recovery. If they look carefully at the work of the fees working group, they will see that all the organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and the shooting organisations, agreed that the system allows for full cost recovery. Put simply, the police must adopt the new, computerised efficiency systems to give them those reductions in costs. Unfortunately, not all constabularies are complying with that new e-commerce system. I ask the Minister to encourage all 42 constabularies to adopt the system so that they can get the maximum efficiencies and keep their costs to the lowest possible level. That would benefit all certificate holders. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity.

It also appears that Section & amendment already applies to Scotland, again from GC-B

Thirdly, subsection (5) of new clause 7 would clarify the law with regard to certificate renewals, and replicate the provision in Scottish legislation that ensures that the possession of firearms remains lawful when there is a delay in renewal. This has happened to me. An application may be made to the police in good time, but because of the number of certificates that the police have to inspect and then decide whether to grant, they do not actually renew the certificate on time. Unless they issue a section 7 temporary permit, the person holding the firearms or shotguns is doing so illegally because the certificate has not been renewed. I therefore suggest the adoption of the Scottish solution.

Continued in next post...

[Sandgroper]

Continued from my previous post as I couldn't get it all in one.

However, the reply from Karen Bradley MP is less encouraging in regard to GC-B's amendments along with subsequent replies -

Let me now deal with the new clauses relating to firearms which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has left the Chamber, but I sensed that he was about to support them as well.
The purpose of the firearms provisions in the Bill is to close the most pressing loopholes in the current legislation, which are open to exploitation by criminals. The Government accept that firearms legislation needs a general overhaul, but our priority must be to address the issues that pose the greatest risk to public safety. The Law Commission recommended that firearms legislation be codified, and we are giving careful thought to the case for that. We may be able to consider some of the proposals in new clauses 7, 8 and 9 as part of such an exercise. The provisions in the Bill have been subject to detailed consideration and consultation by the Law Commission, unlike the proposals presented by the British Shooting Sports Council. We need to think carefully about the impact on public safety before legislating on any of these matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will do just that.

GC-B -

With great respect to my hon. Friend, it sounds as though she is shunting my new clauses into the very long grass, which would simply not be acceptable to the millions of lawful holders of firearms and shotguns. There will be a great deal of pressure on my hon. Friend. Will she please assure us that she is not shifting this into the very, very long grass?

Continued in next post...

[Sandgroper]

And finally!

KB -

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. I understand that he had a productive meeting with officials yesterday to discuss his new clauses. As I have said, our No. 1 priority must be to promote public safety, but I accept that we also need an efficient licensing regime that minimises bureaucracy and inconvenience both to the police and to legitimate holders of firearms certificates. We will study my hon. Friend’s new clauses further, and if there are elements that can sensibly be taken forward without our compromising public safety, I shall be happy to look into whether it might be possible to do that in the Bill. I will keep my hon. Friend informed of progress in advance of the Committee stage in the other place.
I recognise that amendment 1 is intended to enable those with practical expertise to contribute to the development of the guidance to the police. We will consult widely on the first edition of the new statutory guidance, and that consultation will consider the views of shooting organisations as well as of the police. However, this is not a matter for legislation.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has tabled amendments relating to firearms fees. Currently, combined, the authorisation and licensing of prohibited weapons, shooting clubs and museums cost the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. It is our intention that licence holders, not the taxpayer, should pay for the cost of the service. The proposed fees will be set out in a public consultation and the Government must consider any evidence put forward about the impact of the fees on particular categories of licence holders. I cannot pre-empt the consultation but, for example, organisations in the voluntary or civil society sector might put forward a case.

Fees for firearms and shotgun certificates issued by the police are separate and were increased in April 2015. Those were the first increases since 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds talked about the police’s new online e-commerce system. Once that has been introduced across all 43 forces, fees will recover the full cost of licensing.

An opposition MP (Jack Dromey) then goes on to mention full cost recovery again!

The way I read it, is don't hold your breath on those amendments getting through but you never know.
As for full cost recovery, IMHO, the ball is very much in Police's court but they won't get any increase until improvements have been made.