Despite the Starmer family counting generations of gamekeepers among their forebears, the Labour leadership are now being aptly dubbed the ‘metrosplainers’, having missed the mark when it comes to the bombshell agricultural relief for inheritance tax changes by a country mile, pun intended. It was Steve Reed, Environment Secretary, who said whilst campaigning last year to convert his shadow role into the real deal, “With Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour will treat our rural communities with respect. That means people from urban areas - like me - not telling people who live and work in the countryside how they should live their lives. […] We want rural communities to control their own futures.”
Leaving inheritance tax to one side, those who live and work in the countryside, especially in and around shooting, will soon be facing other forms of financial pain. The VAT reclassification of double cab pick-ups from light commercial vehicle to passenger car will be one such financial burden to stomach for gamekeepers, deer managers, along with many other rural workers. This example was another surprise, but one future financial strain that will certainly not be a surprise is an impending increase in firearms licensing fees.
The last government came close but failed to enact a moderate increase in firearms licensing fees with accompanying promises. The new government pledged in their manifesto that they will introduce “full cost recovery” for firearms licensing. This issue did not feature in the King’s Speech, but then again, neither did ceding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Nevertheless, the introduction of full cost recovery fees is unlikely to take too long. It will see the fees for applying for the grant or renewal of a shotgun or firearms certificate perhaps double or quadruple. This will put shotgun or rifle ownership out of financial reach for some who depend on gun ownership for their livelihood, or else for their cultural identity and mental and physical wellbeing. But can such increases be justified?
Truthfully, the answer is both yes and no. Firearms licensing fees haven’t increased since 2014, whereas CPI, RPI and wages have seen significant inflation. The many firearms licensing authorities in the England, Scotland and Wales depend on Home Office funding to plug the discrepancies between the comparatively low income from licence fees and licensing costs. To have to pay for a service provided is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is paying through the nose for a broken system. Some face a two-year wait for a firearms grant, whereas others wait only for a couple of months. To the outrage of many, Gloucestershire Constabulary have recently announced a suspension of acceptance of new licence applications, contrary to their statutory duty.
Firearms licensing is unacceptably a postcode lottery. Any “full cost” recovered should be calculated on the operations of a functional licensing department, not a dysfunctional one – the licensee shouldn’t be punished for the inadequacies of the licensor. If full cost recovery fees are introduced, so must the service across all licensing departments be brought to an effective and efficient level. This should come with the government’s proposals when they make them. Other actions that would allow police firearms licensing units to provide an effective and efficient service would be the removal of sound moderators from the definition of “firearms”, the cessation of irrelevant land checks and, most importantly, the introduction of a 10-year licence period, now made possible through medical markers placed on licence holders’ medical records. Without a service level improvement agreement, any increase to firearms licensing fees above inflation is hard to justify.