Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The officials from the Department of Justice who are providing evidence today are Christopher George, head of the firearms and explosives branch (FEB), and Dr Jennifer Stewart and Claire Duncan from the firearms and explosives branch. We also have with us Chief Superintendent Mark Roberts from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. You are very welcome to the Committee. Thank you very much for attending. I suspect that you have an opening statement to make. Christopher, do you want to start? Thank you very much.

Mr Christopher George (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on the matter of the Department's consultation on proposals to amend the firearms licensing fees and the banded system. I was appointed head of the firearms and explosives branch in April 2026. As you said, Chair. I am joined by my colleagues Jennifer Stewart and Claire Duncan and also by Chief Superintendent Mark Roberts from the PSNI. I acknowledge at this stage that the Committee is now aware of the Minister's decision to withdraw the consultation. I take the opportunity to apologise for any inconvenience that that may have caused the Committee, and I will aim to answer any questions that the Committee may have about that.

By way of background, firearms licensing in Northern Ireland is governed by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, and the Chief Constable is responsible for the majority of firearms licensing under that Order. The firearms licensing service is a critical component of public safety that requires robust assessment processes to ensure that individuals who are granted firearms certificates (FACs) are fit to possess firearms and have good reason to do so and that such possession does not present a risk to the public. Fees for firearms licensing in Northern Ireland were last amended in 2016 and have not kept pace with the rising costs of administering the service. Over time, that has led to a significant gap between the income that is generated through fees and the actual cost of delivering the service. That deficit places increasing pressure on the PSNI's firearms licensing branch. Critically, it diverts valuable resources away from the mainstream policing budget, thus raising valid questions about the long-term sustainability of the current model.

In light of that, the Department launched a public consultation to seek views on proposals to amend the current licensing fees. The consultation also sought views on proposals to add additional calibres of rifles to schedule 1A to the 2004 Order. The banded system, as it is commonly referred to, sets out the firearms that may be exchanged in a one-on, one-off firearm transaction that is carried out by a registered firearms dealer (RFD). The consultation has provided an important opportunity to seek the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including certificate holders, representative organisations, rural and sporting groups and the general public. The Department has received a substantial number of responses — close to 1,000 — which reflects a high level of interest in, and engagement with, the proposals.

I recognise that proposals to increase fees can be of concern to certificate holders and other stakeholders. It is therefore essential that any changes be implemented in a transparent and evidence-based manner, with clear communication provided on the reasons for making them. I am aware that many respondents have expressed strong views about the relationship between proposed fee increases and the standard of service that they receive. Stakeholders have highlighted concerns about processing times and delays, while many have questioned whether an increase in fees will be accompanied by demonstrable improvements in those areas. In reality, moving to full cost recovery will sufficiently fund the current PSNI FEB staffing model, essentially allowing the service to maintain its current practices. Any desire or plan to increase the capacity and capability of the branch would likely require additional funding beyond the current full cost recovery levels. That having been said, the Department fully acknowledges those concerns, and Chief Superintendent Roberts may wish to address some of the misconceptions about the operational delivery of the firearms licensing service separately.

The Minister has carefully considered the strong and consistent concerns expressed since the consultation's launch, and, following recent advice from officials, she has taken the decision to withdraw the consultation at this time. That decision reflects the Minister's commitment to listening to stakeholders and to ensuring that future proposals are developed on a more informed and balanced basis. The Department will now take time to evaluate fully the issues raised. As part of that process, we intend to engage with key stakeholders to better understand their perspectives and to inform the development of any future proposals. The Department intends to launch a consultation in due course that is supported by clear evidence and proactive engagement so that those who wish to respond are better informed to do so. That approach will ensure that any future proposals are robust, transparent and capable of commanding broader confidence among stakeholders and the public. The Department remains committed to maintaining a firearms licensing system that is not only fair but sustainable. The outcome of any future consultation will play a key role in shaping the next steps for achieving those objectives. I look forward to assisting the Committee with any questions that it may have. I now invite Chief Superintendent Roberts to make his own opening remarks.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Christopher.

Chief Superintendent Mark Roberts (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Chair and members of the Committee, I add my thanks to those of Chris for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am the temporary chief superintendent in charge of protective services in the PSNI's operational support department. As part of that role, I am accountable for the firearms and explosives branch and for the delivery of the service that it provides.

I recognise that, as well as the proposed amendment to the firearms licensing fee and changes to the banded system, which were put forward in the now withdrawn consultation, the Committee will, as will many others, have an interest in the performance and efficiency of the branch, and I am happy to address that today. Firearms licensing is one of the highest-risk matters that the PSNI deals with, and even the most effective process of assurance before authorisation will always result in a residual risk as firearms enter the community. Our processing is always a balance of timeliness against the risk to public safety, and it is something that my team and I take very seriously. We are all acutely aware of the impact of the misuse of firearms in our community and of our responsibility to keep people safe. Addressing the criteria outlined in the Firearms Order about fitness to be entrusted to hold a firearm and to have good reason to do so often make it necessary to carry out complex checks and seek additional information, often from third parties, in order to make the right decision. We are incredibly grateful for the partnership that we have developed with those representing the firearms community who assist us in that task.

I will now turn to the proposed amendment of the fees. At the outset, I wish to make it clear that the PSNI seeks nothing more than a cost-neutral basis for the delivery of the service. That position is wholly in keeping with that laid out in the Department of Finance document 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' ('MPMNI), which states that charges for services provided by public-sector organisations should normally pass on the full cost of providing them. The FEB funding gap in the 2025-26 financial year was approximately £1·75 million, made up of payroll, overtime and non-pay items, including postage and medical fees. That substantial figure is drawn from the PSNI's main grant budget and has an inevitable and direct impact on our ability to fund other critical functions, including tackling the unacceptable level of death and serious injuries on our roads, violence against women and children, race hate and the threats from terrorism and from serious and organised criminality. The Chief Constable has been crystal clear with the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) and the public about the PSNI's stark financial position. As a service that has not yet received confirmation of our budget for this financial year, we are operating with a predicted shortfall over the next three years of £57 million this year, £92 million next year and £149 million the year after that. The Committee will appreciate that the shortfall in licensing fees is a significant sum of money that we seek to recover.

The matter is also being addressed in England and Wales. On 14 May this year, the Minister of State for Policing and Crime laid a statutory instrument in Parliament to increase licensing fees from 4 June, with a range of fees based on the transaction type, and to introduce concurrently more regular, inflation-based increases alongside a comprehensive review of costs, which is to take place every three years.

On the matter of efficiency, as the individual who is accountable for the service's delivery, I recognise the inconvenience that delays cause to the community that we serve. The position in which we find ourselves, which is reflected across many other areas of public service and government, is not one in which we wish to be, and I apologise to those who are affected by the length of time that some of applications take to process.

For context, I have a team of 63 staff, who not only process applications but provide a wide range of other functions laid out in regulations. They provide a service to approximately 54,000 licence holders, receiving between 18,000 and 25,000 applications annually. I will give a snapshot of their work. Between July 2025 and December 2025, they processed 6,636 firearms certificates, made 1,066 complex case decisions, processed 3,117 dealer variations and made 132 seizure decisions. In addition, they answered 9,052 queries to their help desk and dealt with 1,955 other matters, including the time and motion study that was completed as part of the consultation process.

The FEB as a function has been subject to five inspections over the past seven years. The inspections produced recommendations on compliance around audit trails, application targets, performance reporting, online service enhancements and the move towards cost recovery. The majority of the recommendations have been addressed and have enhanced our service. At the request of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, we are currently subject to a further deep-dive review that the transformation team in the service is conducting independently of me and our branch. The terms of reference agreed with the board are wide-ranging, and I can assure the Committee today that if recommendations arise from the review, we will act to implement them. The team has come a long way, and its members and I have an absolute desire to provide the best service possible to our firearms community. As the Committee may be aware, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is in the final stages of completing a review of firearms licensing in England and Wales. We are engaged with its officers and will work with them to assess how their recommendations can be applied here, where they are relevant, given the legislative difference between us.

As part of the current deep-dive review, HMICFRS was asked to provide contextual benchmarking of the PSNI's workload and timeliness against national data for police forces in England and Wales to support interpretation of our performance. The initial findings that it has presented to me state:

I fully understand and appreciate that HMICFRS's assessment will not bring comfort to individuals who are waiting for extended periods for their applications to be processed. Given the nature of the service that we provide, however, I must ensure that timeliness is balanced against the risk to public safety. It is in the interest of all the community that we serve that our work be carried out with the utmost diligence and professionalism.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Mark. If there are no further contributions at this stage, we will move straight to questions.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming to the Committee. The situation has obviously changed significantly in the past 24 hours. Every member will be conscious of the position with public finances across the Executive and public bodies, but this place works best when people work together. I am very conscious that, now that the consultation has been pulled, you are looking to find clear evidence and have proactive engagement before next steps are taken. What will that proactive engagement look like? What can interested groups expect?

Mr George: Thank you for your question. As you will be aware, the Minister issued her statement just last night that the consultation was being withdrawn, so it all happened relatively quickly. It is the Department's intention, however, that we will work collaboratively with the PSNI and stakeholder representatives to gather evidence and practical insights that will inform any future policy. We want to engage proactively with those key stakeholder groups, possibly via targeted meetings and round-table discussions, so that we can maintain open dialogue. We will also provide regular updates as we progress in order to keep stakeholders informed on possible policy development and next steps. Moreover, we want to demonstrate our responsiveness by explaining what evidence we will use as we move forward. Following the Minister's decision, I am keen that we take the time to reflect on where we have got to. It is important for the branch to do that. Once we have done that, we can hopefully reach out to stakeholders and begin the engagement process.

Ms Egan: That is important. I do not think that any interested groups would expect licensing prices never to go up. Rather, it is about the approach taken to engagement. What you have said would be a positive way forward. Do you foresee the consultation being relaunched before the end of the mandate? How long do you expect the process to take?

Mr George: To be clear, the timing of the announcement will impact on the delivery of any changes. It is therefore highly unlikely that any amending legislation will be introduced in the current mandate. In turn, that will impact on the Department's ability to consider other aspects of firearms and explosives legislation. The 2004 Order provides limited powers to make regulations. As a result, more substantial policy changes are likely to require the introduction of primary legislation in a future mandate. The Minister's decision represents an opportunity for officials to engage, as I said, with the PSNI and other stakeholders to assess what resources will be required and how we can address their concerns. You are right to say that no one wants to see fee increases, but if the branch can demonstrate how it arrived at the figures, and the evidence supports how we did so, we hope that that will result in a better conversation and that the fee increases will get more support from stakeholders.

Ms Egan: I appreciate that. I have one more question. You said that no changes being made in this mandate could impact on other firearms legislation. At what other firearms legislation are you looking?

Mr George: We have ongoing engagement with the PSNI and have done for a long time. I am sure that there are wider policing issues than issues with firearms licensing, but we are focused on the firearms fee, as it is a priority for the Department and the PSNI. For that reason, our sole focus is going to be on how we can reflect on what we have done and how we can move forward with launching a future consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Christopher, you mentioned policy development and next steps. When you leave here today, what is the next step?

Mr George: When we return to the branch, we will need to review how we arrived at this stage. I understand that the situation is not ideal. Firearms licensing is a wide-ranging topic that affects a lot of people. Having joined the branch in mid-April, it is clear to me that firearms ownership is not simply a regulatory matter but one that is closely tied to people's identity and heritage and to rural life. I recognise the strength of feeling, so it is important that the branch takes the time to listen to stakeholders to hear from them what we could have done differently and how we can address their concerns.

I am reluctant to say right now what that will look like. We want to begin the process of reviewing how we got into this position and take it from there.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Although it was the Minister's decision to withdraw the consultation, you said that that decision was based on recent advice from officials. Which officials advised the Minister?

Mr George: We have been listening since the consultation launched. We received a lot of responses to it, and there was consistency in the concerns that were raised. Our advice was that the consultation could have been more transparent in some ways about the publication of the data collection exercise that was referenced. There were, we believe, also issues with the consultation document. We were therefore concerned that respondents had not been provided with all the information that they needed in order to make an informed decision. We want to reflect on that and see how we might do better if there were to be another consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I asked that question because, when a consultation finishes, it is usual to assess the information that has been collated from the respondents. It is therefore strange that the consultation was withdrawn days before it was due to end anyway. It is irregular to do a consultation on something and then to consult on it again. Given that it was to close in two days' time, why did you not go down the usual route, as opposed to withdrawing the consultation?

Mr George: I will give you the reason for that. From our review of the processes that got us to this point, we decided that doing that would require us to pause the consultation, issue amended documents and share them with the respondents that we had already contacted. We felt that doing that would be messy. Although that was a viable option, alongside extending the closing date for the consultation by four weeks, we also presented the Minister with another viable option, which was to withdraw the consultation and, in essence, start afresh. We felt that that was the cleanest option.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): To be clear, that advice came from firearms and explosives branch officials.

Mr George: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for your presentation. A wee bit of light is being shed on matters now. I will pick up on the Chair's question. Did nobody red-flag the issues prior to the consultation?

Mr George: After I joined the branch, we met to review the issues raised in the responses as they came in. The branch worked as a team to review them. With hindsight, we could have done things differently to address the concerns.

Mr McGlone: I appreciate that. By way of a fact, chief superintendent, I checked the figures for GB. The initial fee for granting a firearms certificate over there is £204, while renewal costs £135.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: From 4 June this year, yes.

Mr McGlone: Yes. The proposal for here is to charge 250 quid for the initial fee and 250 quid for renewal. There is a brave disparity there, and, if GB is going with as good as full cost recovery through that, I do not know what is going on.

I will drill down into some of the figures. Perhaps you can explain them. The Department had a shortfall of £267,000 in 2018. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about £383,000 today. How did the shortfall jump from, if I round it up, £400,000 to £2 million?

Ms Claire Duncan (Department of Justice): From working on the consultation, I am aware that, in the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Firearms licensing in Northern Ireland', which was published in 2018, the cost of firearms enquiry officers (FEOs) was attributed to districts, whereas FEOs are now part of the firearms and explosives branch model.

Mr McGlone: Do they account for £1·6 million?

Ms Duncan: The figure is the deficit between the receipts that are —.

Mr McGlone: The shortfall was £267,000 in 2018. If the figure were to be adjusted for inflation, it would be almost £400,000. If we therefore subtract £400,000 from almost £2 million, the figure is £1·6 million. Is that the cost of running firearms enquiry officers in each district?

Ms Duncan: No. It is the deficit between the receipts and the cost of providing the service.

Mr McGlone: Why is there such a huge increase, then?

Ms Duncan: I cannot speak to that because I do not work for the PSNI.

Mr McGlone: It would be helpful to get the answer, because that is a huge increase.

Ms Duncan: There was a big difference. We are aware that FEOs' salaries were not included in the 2018 deficit figure, but they are now.

Mr McGlone: How many firearms enquiry officers are there in total?

Ms Duncan: I do not know.

Mr McGlone: You can appreciate why I want to know: there has been a huge leap in the figure. Why has that been the case, especially when people are now working from home? I do not know the answer, so it is for you to come back to the Committee and explain why it is the case. If you want a bit of latitude, you can come back to me with the information. I do not expect an instant answer today, because you may not have anticipated the question. Chair, it would be helpful to get an answer to that question.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I am happy to provide some measure of understanding if that would assist you.

Mr McGlone: That would be great. Thank you.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Since 2018, the structure of the branch has changed, and 63 people now work in the branch. The difference between the initial sum, which was chargeable in the operational support department, and the figure that you see now is the difference between what was costed to the function at the time and the figure we have now arrived at, which is the full cost of the firearms licensing process. Today's figure and the deficit of £1·75 million therefore reflect the difference between what we need for a fully costed service and what is being subsidised by the rest of the organisation.

You mentioned the new firearms licensing fees in England and Wales from 4 June, which are to be £204 and £135. We operate in a unique circumstance, in that the legislation is significantly different. There is a significant difference in the number of people who hold personal protection weapons (PPWs) here. As HMRC stated, because of differences in the legislation and in the type and nature of the firearms that we license, England and Wales and Northern Ireland are not equivalent.

Mr McGlone: I get that. PPWs account for a small proportion of the 50,000 weapons, but the renewal fee in those jurisdictions is almost half of what is being proposed here. I do not understand that, and it would be helpful if you could come back to the Committee on that.

Mr George, you will have heard the evidence about people waiting a long time for variations to their firearms certificate. Those people already have a firearms certificate, so any security issues would normally have been flagged at an earlier stage in the process. They may not even still hold those firearms.

Another issue is that people have to run businesses that sell firearms. I have spoken to registered firearms dealers, and they have shown me their stores. There are banks of firearms sitting in the stores that have been sold or that have a deposit placed on them. The paperwork has been done, but they are just sitting there. You are more than aware that the consequence of that is that if dealers are at or near the quota under the ministerial directive, they cannot bring in any new firearms to put on the shelves to sell. The dealers therefore have stock that is under lock and key, but it cannot be moved on because a deposit, or even the full amount, has been paid pending the person getting their first firearms certificate or a variation on that. Meanwhile, someone may want a new over and under shotgun, target rifle or whatever, but the dealer cannot bring it in, because doing so will take them over their quota. Has any thought been given to the restrictions that the ministerial quota places on a business's functionality? RFDs have to turn a wheel, in that they have to earn money from the process.

Has any consideration been given to that at all? If one end is not working properly, and the firearms are not being turned out properly and the FACs are not being turned around in time, that has a consequential effect on a business, particularly if it cannot bring in a new gun that a person fancies for target shooting or whatever it might be.

Mr George: To the best of my knowledge — Claire can correct me if this is not right — we carried out a survey of FACs in 2021, and 30% of dealers responded. The Department acknowledges that dealers represent a key group of businesses and that there are over 80 dealers in Northern Ireland. The Department has engaged with the PSNI to seek its views on the matter. At present, however, the clear priority is the fees issue and the move to full cost recovery. I am aware that there are concerns among dealers about the holding limits in the context of application backlogs. As I said, we have engaged with the PSNI on that. I will not speak for Chief Superintendent Roberts, but we are happy to continue engaging on that front.

Mr McGlone: Whatever your engagement with the chief superintendent — no disrespect to you, chief superintendent — it is a ministerial directive; the clue is in the title. Have you been in a position, chief superintendent, to give advice to the DOJ on that matter?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: At this time, the Police Service does not support it. We recognise the impact that this has on dealers, but our priority has to be to ensure that the system and the process work effectively in protecting public safety. We do not wish to place more firearms into secure premises in the community. We would like to see an acceleration of our processes. We have talked today about cost recovery. We will take part in the reviews. If, from the deep-dive review, we get any suggestion about how we can accelerate the processes to ensure that we can issue licences faster, we will take that opportunity. At this time, however, it is our view that it would not be beneficial to place more firearms into storage in the community.

Mr McGlone: Sorry. That is a criticism of the DOJ, because it signs off on the adequacy of the storage.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: It is not a criticism of anybody. It is our position that firearms going into the community presents a risk to the community. Those firearms will be sitting because we have been unable to fulfil and complete the licensing processes for the individuals who will hold them. Until we can be sure that the individual to whom the firearm will go is a fit and proper person to hold that firearm and has good reason to do so, we will not support increasing storage in the community.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, we are going away off in two different directions.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: OK.

Mr McGlone: Most of those, incidentally, are variations to FACs. You have already said that they are a fit person to hold a firearm, unless there is some new, perhaps younger, person taking it up. However, that is a totally different argument from my point about the ministerial directive. Those firearms are not going into the community; they are going into fit and secure premises that have been signed off by DOJ officials following, in some instances, many scrupulous inspections. Lest it be misinterpreted by someone who is listening to this session: they are not going out into the community.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: No, but they are being held in an armoury within the community. You say that the majority are variations for somebody who already held a firearm. When we carry out those variations, a significant amount of our work is in seeking medical advice and providing further background checks. Quite often, when firearms go into that queue, particularly the complex queue, it is because of the unique circumstance of the individual who is seeking them. One of the things that we work on and will look at closely with partners in His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, including in conversations that we had with them recently, is the fact that the renewal process looks different in England and Wales.

Underpinning all this is the management of public safety and the prevention of firearms going into communities unless we know that the people who hold them are appropriate people to hold them. That is no criticism of the dealers whose current armouries, as inspected by the Department of Justice, are fit for purpose. I recognise the impact that this has on them, but it is our view that this licensing process needs to change. I have to balance timeliness with the risk to public safety. Doing a sticking-plaster fix by saying, "You can hold more firearms", rather than pushing through legislation and changing regulations to accelerate the process to everybody's satisfaction is not a solution that I wish to pursue at this time.

Mr McGlone: I did not suggest that.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: That is simply our advice to the Department of Justice.

Mr McGlone: You invite this obvious question: how many of the firearms certificates that are waiting for variation at the FEB have question marks over them?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I cannot tell you the figure. I will come back to you.

Mr McGlone: Your logic invited that question.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I am happy to come back to you. I said earlier that we made something like 1,066 complex case decisions and 3,117 dealer variations, which are significant numbers. If you are looking for a specific figure, we will happily bring it to you.

Mr McGlone: I say that, Chief Superintendent, because I am following the logic of your argument to its conclusion. If I were to go back to an RFD and look at the 40, 50 or 60 guns that are sitting in their armouries and cannot be moved on, I would see that those 50 or 60 firearms are not all complex cases by any stretch of the imagination.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: No.

Mr McGlone: That is the nub of the problem.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Yes.

Mr McGlone: If they were complex cases, it would be fair enough; I would absolutely get that. If a further inquiry has to be made by whomever it might be — a medical person or MI5 — I understand all that, but processing cases that are not complex could alleviate the situation for dealers who have a problem in respect of the quota of firearms that they can retain. That is the issue. It is probably a management issue. It might be about saying, "Let's structure it by seeing what is and is not complex. Let's go with those that are not complex, where someone already holds a firearm certificate, has a good reason to hold it and has a clean bill of health". I just do not know. It intrigues me that that is the basis of your argument when I know from dealers that not all the firearms that are sitting there are complex cases. I am reluctant to allow that message to go out from here today.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I am not saying that they are all complex cases. It is about looking holistically at the issues that we have with firearms licensing. The key piece that we are here to discuss is the consultation on the fees. That would make us cost-neutral. HMICFRS has told us that it sees our service as efficient and as being in line with services in the rest of the United Kingdom. To accelerate that process, we will look at the deep-dive review and take any of the recommendations that come from it. I should state that we have been reviewed five times in the past seven years, and no significant recommendations for changes to processes have been made. We have been told by HMICFRS that we are comparable to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Accelerating the process would take additional staffing, and, as the Chief Constable has said repeatedly, we are significantly below the resourcing levels that we should have in order to deliver a service in a comparable area of policing. If, as a potential solution, we were to increase the quota of what can be held, that would very quickly be filled. Given our processes, that would place us in the same position within a period that I would not want to put a measure on. The process of firearms licensing is running effectively and efficiently: HMICFRS has stated that. The timelines relate to staffing, and we simply do not have more staff to put into this. If I drew staff from anywhere else in the service, I would be drawing them from other critical functions to deliver this.

Mr McGlone: I have a final point, and then I will drop the issue — for the moment, anyway. HMICFRS has said that you are comparable to other constabularies. I dip in and out of the other stuff, and I see similar queries and complaints. I read shooting publications and British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) publications. There are similar complaints about other constabularies, as well as, perhaps, the occasional positive comment here and there. Similar complaints and issues have been raised about delays.

I caveat it by saying this, which is more or less marking your card rather than anything else: the previous time the Committee went through all this — the Chair and I were both on the Committee then — it was said that increased fees would definitely lead to increased efficiency, but they did not. You can understand that a body of shooters who really enjoy their sport and all that are saying, "This is Groundhog Day; we're going through this again. We and the dealers were promised efficiencies and all that sort of stuff. Are we going to have to pay more to get more of the same?". That is a concern out there, and it is important that you and the Department are aware of that.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I am fully aware of that. I said in my opening statement, and I meant it, that I apologise for the delays and inconvenience that this is causing. I am grateful that, under the team that we have had since 2023, we have seen a significant change in the relationship between the Police Service and the communities that shoot. We have seen a significant improvement in the work that that team does and the manner in which it does it, often in the face of quite significant abuse from individuals. Anybody who has seen the online responses today to the withdrawal of the consultation process will know that some of that abuse is pointed directly at members of my team, who work very hard to deliver the service, often on overtime, in order to try to maintain the relationship that we have with the communities.

I can only come back to saying that we are committed to the review that the Policing Board is doing. We have seen what HMICFRS has said. We will adopt anything that will improve that service, balancing public safety against timeliness. I know that I am a bit of a broken record on that, but that is where I am. It is absolutely in my heart and in the team's heart that, if we can improve this in any way, we will. We understand the impact on dealers. We understand that some in the shooting community have waited in a complex queue for an extended period. I am happy to have my card marked, because the relationships that we have now are not the ones that we had when we were here before. We are more than willing to listen to and work with people to deliver the service.

Mr McGlone: I associate myself with the point that it is a disgrace for anybody to be abusive towards public servants who are going about their daily work. Those people should be concerned that, if they are seen making abusive commentary, that could call into question whether or not they are a fit person. Thanks.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: That has not escaped us, and thank you for your comments.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you all for coming in. The situation has changed. It feels a little bit late in the day to be having this conversation after the decision to pull the consultation, although I am mindful that you are rescheduling that. The lack of consultation with rural communities will be cause for concern as will the fact that, even in the rural needs assessment, some of the questions were disregarded.

I declare an interest as the daughter of a sheep farmer in the Sperrins who has a firearm because he needs it for his livelihood. There is a growing feeling of anxiety in such communities. Hill farmers are more likely to need to control pests because of the nature of the land that they operate on. My father lambs outside, and he loses lambs every season as a result of pests. It almost feels that that particular group are the victims of increasing pressures. We see cost-of-living increases, the price of fuel and all of the pressures that are on them. This is causing serious anxiety. My primary question is this: how will that be considered ahead of the next consultation, and what will be done differently?

I have a second question. I note the reference to the system going online. That decision was made to provide efficiencies. I do not know — maybe I missed it — if the saving that has been made from the system going online has been measured. A huge percentage of the population who need guns to manage livestock do not work with online systems as part of their job. We also see that with the Department of Agriculture, where everything is going online. It often feels like a barrier. As a constituency MLA, people often come to me for help with such applications — for things to do with DAERA and firearms licensing. To justify the move to an online system, the saving would have to be significant, because, an awful lot of the time, it feels like it just further isolates the rural community. The Department needs to consider that point.

Mr George: The Minister, the Department and, certainly, the firearms and explosives branch are very conscious of the impact that this is having on all licence holders and those who require a firearm for legitimate purposes, whether it is for their employment or for personal protection. It is essential that, regardless of the reason for applying for a firearm certificate, the licence fee remains the same for all applicants, as per the legislation. Each person must be assessed to be a fit person to hold that firearm and must have good reason for having it and any ammunition that is applied for. I will not speak to the PSNI's processes, but we are aware of the concerns. During the pause, so to speak, of the consultation, the branch intends to consider the documents that were published as part of the consultation process in order to see what we can do differently with them.

I will pass over to the chief superintendent to address the online application system, which is delivered by the PSNI delivers.

We are aware of the concerns, but it is very much our position that each individual, regardless of why they need a firearm, has to go through the appropriate vetting and procedures.

Ms Sheerin: Of course. I do not know the figures off the top of my head, but I assume that firearm ownership is a rural pursuit and that the vast majority of people who need a firearm for their livelihood are rural dwellers. It has a disproportionate impact on our rural community. That has to be recognised.

Mr George: Yes.

Ms Duncan: We are aware that people use firearms for sporting purposes, farming, collection, target shooting and a whole range of other activities. We have provided the rural impact assessments, but we have also seen the feedback that has come from the consultation responses to date. As Christopher said, we will take that on board as we prepare further impact statements.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: When elected representatives or other individuals raise concerns with us about delays in issuing firearms for work purposes, such as for farmers and vets, which we have had, we seek to move them through the queue quickly and address them as quickly and appropriately as we can. That has an impact, because there is no mechanism to accelerate the process for someone seeking a weapon for a leisure purpose. When we accelerate a vet through the queue for a firearm, that means that we are not dealing with somebody who may have applied earlier. However, we are alive to that, we deal with it and we are grateful when people bring those matters to our attention.

I will come back to you with an answer about the overall efficiencies of the online system. We have been challenged a number of times about access to the system. To my recent knowledge, no complaints have been made to the Equality Commission about the accessibility of the system. We have worked hard with the firearms community. We did a lot of roadshows and such things. As you said with regard to your own experience, we ask people, where necessary, to seek help if they find themselves in a difficult position. The overwhelming feedback that we have had about the online system is that it is welcomed, particularly for renewals, where the system will automatically complete forms and documentation for people on the basis of previous information. We will provide a written response on the overall benefits, but feedback on experience of the system has been overwhelmingly positive. We will look to move other parts of firearms licensing on to an electronic system to try to achieve efficiencies. In doing so, we recognise that we have to understand that that will impact more on some communities than on others. We are more than happy to listen to and work with them to prevent there being any harm.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before I bring Brian in, I will pick up on the question that Emma asked about rural needs. Claire, you talked about the rural needs impact assessments. Can you give us an update on them and tell us about any material differences that those assessments have made?

Ms Duncan: It was a draft consultation rural needs impact assessment. As Christopher said, we will look at the concerns that have been raised. One of the requests in the consultation was, "Please look at our rural impact assessment and our section 75 screening form. Please give us information so that we can understand the impacts on certain members of the community". We will take that on board.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance today. We all understand the importance of firearm licensing in the interests of public safety. There is an outcry if any legally held weapon is used in a crime or an atrocity, and questions are then asked that put everything in perspective. Why have the fees not increased for 10 years?

Mr George: From the previous consultation?

Mr Kingston: Fees have not increased since 2016. Why is that? Is it because Ministers, when they were in post, took a decision not to increase the fees, or would legislation be needed to increase them?

Dr Jennifer Stewart (Department of Justice): Legislation would be needed. Since 2016, there have been a number of periods when we did not have a sitting Assembly. There have been other issues in the mix, such as EU exit. This is really the first opportunity to take a further look at fees.

Mr Kingston: It is not like Translink fees or Housing Executive rent fees that a Minister can make a decision on?

Dr Stewart: No. If we wanted to make a more significant change, beyond what is in the Firearms Order, we would need primary legislation. We can use secondary legislation to increase and vary the sums that are in the current structure, but anything wider would require primary legislation, and that would be much more in-depth, longer work. We have been consulting just on proposals to change the amount within the current structure.

Mr Kingston: OK. As with any fee, if it goes up gradually in line with inflation, it is less of a shock. When it goes up by 150%, there will obviously be a reaction. That is just a general comment.

How long does a licence last for? Is it five years?

Dr Stewart: Five years.

Mr Kingston: For all firearms?

Ms Duncan: I think that it is five years for the majority of the licences. A visitor's permit might last for one year, but I will stand corrected on that.

Mr Kingston: OK, but most are five years.

Ms Duncan: That is the case for general firearms certificates and dealer certificates.

Mr Kingston: Mark, what is your view? You said that the HMICFRS concluded that the timescales are similar to those in other constabularies, but I understand that, for the FEB, the target has gone from 56 days to around 120 days. Is that right? Can you say more about that? What is your view on the timescales and the time that is being taken?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: My view on the timescales and the time that is being taken is that it takes us too long. I am not here to try to pretend that I am satisfied with the time that it takes, but the timeline that we are achieving is a measure of the success of what that department is doing, not a measure of failure, and that is reflected in what HMICFRS has said. It said that, overall, we turn around all licences faster than they do in England and Wales. It is obviously a huge bell curve: there are some very long delays, and there are some turnarounds, particularly on variations, that are much faster. The timeline that we have is a reflection of the very best that that department can achieve, and HMICFRS has been clear in its statement that it does not see inefficiencies in what we are doing.

In an ideal world, I would have significantly more staff, which would enable us to address the queues, but, as a service, we simply do not have the staffing numbers that we require to deliver the service that we want to achieve. As I said earlier, we have looked at AI and all sorts of things to help us try to manage the queues and bring them down, and we will adopt any recommendations that come to us.

I apologised because I am not satisfied with the time that it takes. However, it is really important to say to those who are watching, and to the Committee, that it is not a reflection of inefficiency in the team, who, as I said earlier, often work overtime to clear some of the backlogs that we have. It is a reflection of how we are currently structured. The funding sits separately from that because the additionality around the £1·75 million that is being subsidised from the main grant is further taking resource from the service that we could put against some of the things that I spoke of earlier.

Mr Kingston: OK. Is it currently largely a paper-based process?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: The electronic system has provided great benefit. Most of it has moved to an electronic system, which assists us and means that we are not moving through a large amount of paper. However, when it comes to the complex queue, in particular, you will be aware that we use the national decision model as a basis for all policing to review threat risk and harm. That process is completed on forms, which my seniors complete.

Mr Kingston: Are licence renewals fast-tracked if no issue has been flagged?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: There are various parts of the team. If you would like a written response on who exactly does what, we will be happy to provide it. The seniors take the complex queues, and other staff in the department will look at the more "day business" ones. For a renewal, where we are satisfied that there is no change or differences in circumstances, whilst there is a risk or a residual risk that we cannot mitigate, it is appropriate that members of the team who sit in the main office deal with that. However, complex cases will move to the seniors because the risk escalates in that process.

Mr Kingston: OK.

When it comes to full cost recovery, no one doubts the pressure that the police budget, and every section, is under. However, the police and Department provide various services in the interests of public safety, such as Access NI checks, policing public events and dealing with parade applications. I am not making suggestions, but there are various areas that deal with the interests of public safety that do not operate on a full cost-recovery basis. That would be the argument back on something that relates to public safety.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: You speak to a matter that is close to heart when you mention events, because I am a gold commander and silver commander, and one function that we look at repeatedly is cost recovery. Along with a lot of police forces across the UK, we are not satisfied that that is appropriately structured, with individuals having to ask us to provide a police service before we can charge for it. We are very alive to the impact on the rest of the policing of such matters. Most of the things that you mentioned are areas in which we are also seeking to address a cost deficit.

Events is an area that I can speak to clearly because it is one with which I am often involved, having just been the gold commander for the North West 200. There is a balance to be struck between the ability to provide the events for the community — that event itself brings in something like £21 million a year for Northern Ireland, so there are benefits to that — and the significant impact that that places on policing resource and demand, to which we need to be alive.

Mr Kingston: I realise that, ultimately, it is a political decision.

Earlier, you said that the police view — I do not know whether I am misrepresenting you — is that it is desirable to reduce the number of firearms in the community in the interests of public safety. Is that your position? What is the police position?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Earlier, I said that placing firearms into the community has a residual risk, and it is our desire that those firearms go into the hands of people who truly meet the definitions that we have for fitness to hold and good reason to do so. We sit, I think, uniquely, compared with quite a lot of the UK, in that we have quite a considerable number of people who have a considerable number of firearms. Often, they are collectors who state an interest.

We spoke earlier about the legislation that you would be interested in looking into. One reason for doing that is to get a clearer definition of "good reason". Whilst it is not my intention or desire to get into the matter of anybody's wish to collect firearms, all of which are held and secured — I accept that — there are a number of collectors in the community who hold a significant number of firearms. Any holding of a large number of firearms in the community carries a residual risk, and we are all fully alive to the consequences of that. That is my position.

Mr Kingston: Are storage arrangements the responsibility of the Department? Who inspects them?

Ms Duncan: The PSNI.

Mr Kingston: It is the police.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: We inspect them.

Mr Kingston: When a licence is renewed, do you have to inspect arrangements again, or are they inspected just once?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: We recently changed our process to ensure that every location that holds a firearm is inspected at least every 10 years. My position is that, ultimately, we should increase that.

Mr Kingston: Increase the frequency.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Increase the frequency. It is a key matter of public safety. I am satisfied with our position at the minute — we made the change in response to recent events in Northern Ireland — but we keep those matters under review all the time.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will add to that. You raised something topical and important, Mark, on the "good reason" element. When you say "good reason", does that mean a good reason to enter a premises to inspect them or a good reason to hold the firearm?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: It means a good reason to hold the firearm. There are two criteria, one of which is that you must be a "fit person"; the other is that you must have good reason to do so.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What are the good reasons to have one?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: There is no definitive list of good reasons. That is why some of the firearms end up with my seniors. For farmers in particular, vermin control is a good reason to hold a firearm. Members of the sporting community often change the type and nature of their shooting classification. When they require an additional firearm, we have to work with them. As I said — I really mean it — our relationship with the firearm community, some of whom are sitting behind me, is now exceptionally good, and we rely on it to help us understand the sport and the "good reason" for holding the firearm. New shooting criteria and new sporting classifications are made all the time. We have to assess whether the new type of shoot that someone wishes to take part in is a good reason to hold the firearm.

"Good reason" is not about accessing premises. Under the legislation, enforcement sits entirely with us, and we deal with it. The "good reason" and "fit person" criteria are for owning a firearm.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before I bring Ciara in, do you want to ask a wee question on that, Brian?

Mr Kingston: I just want to clarify something that Christopher said about the Minister's decision, which was issued in a statement yesterday evening. Will you clarify again how the decision came about? Did you say that it was a recommendation from officials in the firearms branch?

Mr George: Yes. As the consultation progressed, the branch monitored the responses from stakeholders, the views of the Committee and wider sentiment about it. On the basis of the responses and after reflecting on the process that we carried out and the documents and evidence that we had presented to the public, we presented the Minister with a range of options. It was then for the Minister to take her decision on the basis of the information that we provided.

Mr Kingston: Did you say that the officials made a recommendation or a range of —?

Mr George: We presented a series of recommendations, including two possibly viable recommendations, the first of which was a pause in the consultation. Officials worked to amend the documents, provide more information as part of the consultation process and extend the consultation further to allow for those responses to come in.

The other viable recommendation was that we take the decision to terminate the consultation with a view to engaging constructively with the shooting community and stakeholders to better understand their views so that we could inform our proposals and possibly present clearer data. Those were essentially the two recommendations.

Mr Kingston: The second one is the decision that the Minister took?

Mr George: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK?

Mr Kingston: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Ciara.

Ms Ferguson: That worked out nicely, because the first area that I wanted to focus on was the consultation. I am conscious that you have been in the role only since April, Christopher, but what went wrong?

Mr George: I can give my view. This is a priority for the Department and the PSNI. Chief Superintendent Roberts clearly stated the pressures that the team faces. With the end of the mandate approaching, we wanted to consult with the intention that, if appropriate and amendable, we could introduce legislation to address the funding concerns as soon as possible in this mandate. At the risk of repeating myself, after reflecting on the comments, we took a step back, looked at the concerns that had been raised and acknowledged the fact that there were areas that we could have approached differently.

Ms Ferguson: Can you highlight those areas? Then we would know what they are and what not to expect the next time round. It is now about building confidence. I am a strong advocate of early engagement to help to design a consultation process, because that is my background.

Mr George: That is one of the things that we identified. Whilst it was our intention to launch a consultation to seek views, and we welcomed any engagement through that process, it might have been better to have that engagement early to listen to the stakeholders, set out the issues — what the Department can and cannot do — to them and provide detailed evidence for the proposals that we have come up with. We identified that as being an issue with the consultation. As has previously been asked with regard to the impact assessments, could we have made those clearer?

Ms Ferguson: Will you drill down into that? Why did all that not happen? The Departments have been around for a long time, and they have been consulting. Why did none of that happen? I know that you are quite new, Christopher — you have come in at the tail end — but why did that happen? Is it because it was rushed or because it was focused just on increased fees for full cost recovery? Why did none of that happen? If it had happened, we would not be in this situation of pulling a consultation two or three days before it closes.

Mr George: I understand the Committee's concerns. As you pointed out, I came in recently. I have worked with the team and put on record that they put a tremendous amount of work into this over the past few years. They have worked with the PSNI, and a lot of evidence has been gathered. As to why that was not presented, I think that we can again hold up our hands, be accountable and say that, at times, we could have done it better. I will not speak to what happened in the branch before my time, but I have noticed the team's work ethic and passion to deliver what is best for respondents. Again, however, we have to understand our duties as officials with regard to budgeting in the context of pressures. I think that we could possibly have done things differently on this occasion, in a way that would not have led us to the situation that we now face.

I would like to give context. I am keenly aware that the Department's previous consultation, which was in 2016, is fresh in the memories of some members —.

Ms Ferguson: Not mine. I was not around then. [Laughter.]

Mr George: Yes, but with some of the members.

Coming into the branch, I was conscious that I did not want to go through that process again or have that issue. I am conscious that, now that the decision has been made, there is a chance for the branch to learn from this. We will then take a step back and start the engagement process with our stakeholders so that we can better inform and, hopefully, be more transparent and avoid a repeat of not only the issues from 2016 but the issues that have led us to come before the Committee today.

Ms Ferguson: Yes. You need to have a clear reason why you are increasing the fees, so that the general public, or a layperson such as me, who know nothing about rifles or licensing can clearly understand the reasoning. It is the same with the banded system. Can you throw light on the bands? What were the issues with the banded system?

Mr George: The proposals sought to add additional calibres of rifles to schedule 1A of the 2004 Order. The banded system permits the number of firearms that may be exchanged in a one-on, one-off transaction by a registered firearms dealer. The system was introduced in 2016. The PSNI advised us that it was approximately — I am not sure whether this figure is out of date — 400 a month.

The proposed additions to the calibres and rifles that are permitted by the banded system reflected the desire in the shooting community to have possibly more modern, popular rifles included in the transactions that they can carry out with a dealer. The banded system was originally intended for firearms for purposes of pest control, hence the quarry bans, but the system was not intended to facilitate one-off, one-on transactions for target shooting.

The Department considers the concerns that have been raised, for example, that that adds unnecessary complexity and administrative burden. Based on those concerns and the feedback that we have received, we are happy to engage with stakeholders to address those and see how we can work matters out to make it clearer, in whatever form that might take.

Ms Ferguson: I want to move on to full cost recovery stuff.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before you do, I would like to say that, having been part of that and still bearing the scars of 2016, along with Patsy, we are practically the authors of the banded system, and, at that point, whilst there were all the scars and all the bad faith at the start, we got to a really good position, whereby there was great engagement with the Committee by the officials and the firearms fraternity to produce something very good that led to efficiencies in the system.

Somewhere along the line, that has failed because of, I suspect, the capacity of the PSNI. One way or another, whoever was at fault, money and everything else goes with it. However, we were at a really good place. BASC wrote to the Committee in January 2020, asking about variations on the banded system. It took the PSNI five years — five years — to respond. That is an example of how we had got to a really good place, yet within months things had broken down.

Mr George: I understand that, but when we presented the consultation to the Committee, I noted your concerns and those of some of the members. I am conscious that we do not repeat that. I am keen to build relationships, not only with the Committee but with stakeholders so that we do not have a repeat of the issues and that scar tissue that you experienced.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Ciara, I apologise for butting in there.

Ms Ferguson: Claire, you mentioned that 2016 was the last time that the fees were increased. You mentioned that the inquiry staff were not included in the costs in 2018 but they now are. Will you give clarity on that? How many staff were there? Are the inquiry staff among the 63 staff who are now in place? Prior to 2016, how many were in the team and how many staff have been in the team post-2018?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: If I may, I will provide that in a written format, because if I gave you the numbers off the top of my head, they would be wrong. The overall premise of this is that we have now moved all the firearms and explosives work into one team. It is important to note that, when I say "explosives", that that is not explosive blasting: it is the manufacture of ammunition. People thought that we had added explosive blasting, but we have not. We will provide the answer in writing, but now, we have one, dedicated team to look after everything that is required under the firearms licensing and explosives legislation

Ms Ferguson: That would be useful. That was 2016. I was getting a bit confused that, all of a sudden, there was an influx into the team of 30 staff, that is the difference with the 1·5.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: The key change is wages — pay costs for individuals — but we will clarify that and provide that information in writing.

Ms Ferguson: That is good to know.

You said that the biggest delays are third party. What is the issue there? What have you been doing with your third party to improve that? I am assuming that that is the Department of Health's medical records.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: The third-party checks are the ones that sit outside of something that we would so. Some of them will be internal, so we would have to go to some of the teams in the crime branch, and others, to seek information. That takes time. Some of them are external partners relating to intelligence information. One of the things that we do differently here from the rest of the UK is that we are responsible for seeking and paying for the medical certificate for someone who wishes to have a firearm.

We have no control over the timeliness of those responses. One of the things that was recommended in an earlier review, but which we were not able to progress, was that we stop the clock on how long somebody has been waiting for when we write out for a medical certificate. As it stands, we are different from the rest of the UK: we ask for it, and we pay for it.

Ms Ferguson: What is the cost, and what have you been doing with the Department of Health to improve the process, given that that seems to have been a huge barrier for years?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: The cost varies, as it does with any medical certificate or letter; different surgeries charge different prices. We will come back to the Committee in writing about what the standard fee is, but I know from personal experience that, depending on what you want the letter for, you get a different charge. We have engaged with the Department of Health. It is aware of the issue, but it has a significant number of other priorities that it is working on. Accelerating the provision of medical letters from GP surgeries is a matter that you need to take up with them, but I understand why we experience the delays that we do, given some of the issues that we see in the health service.

Ms Ferguson: Have those charges always been there, post-2016?

Ms Duncan: They have.

Ms Ferguson: It would be useful to see the correspondence between you and the Department of Health. Departments need to work collaboratively to improve services. We are strong advocates of cross-departmental working. We are holding a joint meeting with the Committee for Health on other stuff. I would like to see the correspondence that you have had and the ongoing work that you are doing to remedy the delay. That is what is causing the whole delay. If you reduce delay, you will build confidence in the system. People will pay for a quality service, but they are not getting that, and the cost of the service is going up by 150%. I am being simple: the dog on the street would have to bark very loudly.

I welcome the fact that you have come here today; that the process has been paused; that you are reviewing the process; that there is going to be proper early engagement with all stakeholders, so that everybody will work collectively together; and that the process will be much more transparent, open and clear, so that everyone can have a better understanding of it. I did the survey myself. Did you capture information on who was filling in those surveys? I did not have to put my name, address or anything in, and putting in an email address was optional. Maybe I did it incorrectly.

Ms Duncan: We considered —.

Mr McGlone: Did you just put "Ciara from Derry"?

Ms Ferguson: Aye. I went in only to see what was being asked.

Ms Duncan: We have to consider data protection and whether we should be obtaining information that we perhaps do not feel is necessary to inform the proposals. Although we asked whether the person was a firearms certificate holder or a registered firearms dealer, we did not feel that we needed their personal information. That allows people to give their view without fear of having their identity known.

Ms Ferguson: That is something that you should review, from a consultation perspective. People can consent to giving their information.

Ms Duncan: We also asked whether people wanted to be kept informed. That was optional: anybody who wanted to be kept informed could provide their personal information. We felt as though we would have collected information that we did not necessarily need. We were mindful of data protection as well.

Mr George: As we work to introduce a future consultation, we will consider the method that is used and the questions that it asks to see whether there is any way in which things could be done differently.

Ms Ferguson: That would be pertinent as well. You are talking about the processes at the minute. You are saying that, if you want to accelerate the processes, you need even more. I would like a clear picture of what an ideal and efficient service that meets targets would look like. You mentioned additional staff, but we need to see the situation prior to your proposals and the future plan.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: By way of assurance, one of the questions in the deep dive that we have been asked to perform for the Policing Board is, "What would be the ideal service? What would it look like?". We will capture that, and that report will go to the board.

One of the messages that I want to leave with the Committee and anyone who is watching online is that we are providing a good-quality service; we are keeping people safe. I have apologised for the timeliness of the service, and I am not content with the situation. One of the key takeaways is that we are simply seeking a cost-neutral position, so that we do not have to draw funding from other areas of policing to pay for firearms licensing.

Chair, I did not speak earlier, and I waited. There is no excuse for it taking five years to get a response from the Police Service; it is unacceptable, and I apologise to you and the Committee for the scar tissue from that. My team is very capably led by me, and I can assure you that you will not wait five years for a response from us. I used the word "accountable" in my opening statement because I am accountable, and I am happy to be held accountable for that. That is one of the reasons why I thanked you for the opportunity to come before the Committee today.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You said that the rationale for the fee increase is full cost recovery for the current system. In 2018, the Audit Office report, which has been presented by the Department as a motivating factor for the fee increases, states:

What I heard today is that you need the fee increase to stand still with the system that you currently have.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: That is it. We need the fee increase to be in a cost-neutral position. The HMICFRS said that we perform in line with comparable police services elsewhere in the UK, demonstrate a high degree of transparency, and that remaining delays appear to be driven primarily by case complexity and third-party dependencies rather than the efficiency of the internal processing. If I had more staff to deliver the function, that would speed up the processes because the delays are due to the fact that I have only a certain number of senior officers and individuals to assess the applications. The cost-neutral position is about the impact on the Police Service as a whole and our communities. We will take any recommendations from the wider piece to speed up the system to do it faster, but the reality is that, with a £57 million deficit and at least 1,500 officers and several hundred staff fewer than we require to police the environment of Northern Ireland, we simply do not have the staff to add to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Why has the FEB set a target of 56 days? Is that not a pipe dream?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: It is not a pipe dream, but in consultation with HMICFRS, when its review is published, we will look to set a realistic target that we can work towards. The head of my department’s vision is to significantly reduce the backlog of delays, but that will require a significant process change and more staff. We have seen a high degree of staff turnover, and that has been an issue for us. We have seen a number of impacts on the queues from introducing the online system, and a number of other process changes that we have undertaken in the service. I mentioned 63 people. They answered 9,000 queries from the public. The majority of paperwork that comes to me to approve or respond in writing relates to individuals who have concerns about the firearms system. The team does not just do firearms licensing; it carries out a range of other functions to ensure that we maintain public safety. When cases come in that require urgent action, the work for the individual will cease for that day. There is not a group of 63 people who just license firearms and another group who do the other things. The one group does everything that relates to firearms licensing and frequently engages with partners, such as the members at this table, and the firearms community to provide updates, to consult on legislation and regulations and to answer queries. We are doing our level best to reduce the impact of those functions. Bringing FEOs into firearms licensing has provided significant benefits for us, but, while I would not say that the current timeline is a pipe dream, it was aspirational when it was published, and we will look to review it in the deep-dive review.

We could have said that it is very difficult for a team that works as hard as mine does — it genuinely does work hard — to be reviewed five times in seven years and then be told, "You're inefficient, and we would like to do a further deep dive into the work that you do". Nobody turned their noses up at that; they welcomed it, because they, more than anybody else, recognise the issue of timeliness and public safety and will gladly take the opportunity to make the process faster, if we can do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Ciara, are you finished?

Ms Ferguson: No. I was going to come back in on the workforce issue, given that the staff are taking on all those additional responsibilities. Are their responsibilities relating to the fee solely those prescribed in the legislation, or are they doing additional work?

There are workforce issues, such as issues with sick leave, across all Departments. Do you have a workforce challenge in that area?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Our department faces quite a lot of challenges, but we have seen significant improvements since 2023.

I cannot say this enough: the team that I work with is really good and dedicated to what we do. It is, however, a public service, and people get promotions and transfers, and they take them. It is important to recognise that those people have key skills and operate in a high-risk environment. It is not an area that somebody can just come into and within a week, I can say, "Off you go" to them. If someone is going to manage complex cases, they will have a minimum of six months, possibly even a year, of training before they are able to do the job on their own. When I have a small team of seniors who are training new seniors who have come on board, their time is taken up by training those new seniors. The complexity of the risk that they carry impacts on the training times as well. That is the case from those who do the daily work on simple re-grants all the way up. We cannot step back from that, because one wrong decision could have a profound impact on public confidence in policing.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is the establishment for your senior team that deals with complex cases? What is the number?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I will have to come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is the number for the team that deals with ordinary applications and variations?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: If I may, Chair, I will come back to you on that so that I give you the correct figures. One of the reasons I need to do that is that they have recently changed. I have the figure for my staff establishment at 63, but I would prefer to give you the breakdown of that in writing, so that I give you the —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I understand.

Mr Bradley: Thanks for your presentation. My questions were going to be based on the consultation, which is no more.

I remember, when I bought a gun in the early seventies, my licence was verified in the local police barracks within a fortnight. After a while, I sold it and bought a new one. That was done at the dealer's. Ten years later, when I no longer had a safe place to keep it, I gave up the firearm because the dog had died and I did not need it anymore. That was all done locally.

What were your staff numbers in 2016, including officers at the local stations who could verify firearms, compared with the numbers now that the officers are centralised? Your system is inefficient. Your officers are efficient, but the centralisation of anything creates inefficiency and a backlog. It does not matter what it is: if it is centralised, it will automatically be destroyed. While you have an efficient team, your methodology is inefficient. Why can you not spread the workload across the rest of the police stations in Northern Ireland? Why have you had to centralise it?

My other question is on finance. The premise for how much money you need to service the certificates and the firearms is, at the moment, based on high-earning officers, overtime — you said that yourself — and centralisation. In other words, you have more work coming in to be done by smaller numbers. When you are getting back to the Committee with numbers, I would like to see the numbers for officers who were fit to verify firearms certificates or licences in 2016 compared with now and the cost of overtime. Has the cost of the backlog been factored into what you now need to clear all this up? I think that the mathematics is good, because of centralisation.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Respectfully, I disagree with you about centralisation.

Mr Bradley: It is just my opinion based on experience not of the police but of a whole range of centralised things.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: If I may, placing firearms into the community is probably one of the highest-risk functions that we undertake. The benefit around centralisation is not just cost efficiency around process time; it brings single, consolidated decision-making around a clear structure within the national decision model in relation to the allocation of firearms. So, while I agree with you that centralisation is not always the solution, a single team makes decisions. It meets once a week to discuss complex cases to make sure that our decision-making is consistent. If I place that decision-making in the hands of individual officers who happen to be working at the front desk of a station, I will get a significant variation in the decisions and the risk tolerance of that group.

We know from the joint emergency services interoperability principles that risk-based decision-making is best done by people who clearly understand the risks that they are dealing with and who work together so that they all have shared situation awareness. That is delivered through a central group that works and meets regularly to provide consistent decisions in relation to that high-risk work.

There are no police officers in the FEB team. I lead it, but it is entirely staffed by police staff in the district. We have no police officers in there. Therefore, as I said, respectfully, I disagree with the view that, in this case, centralisation has led to inefficiency. As HMICFRS has said quite clearly in its response to us, it has not seen inefficiencies in our processes.

On the point around the firearm being obtained in the 1970s, the operating environment now is significantly different from then and not just in relation to the obvious issues around terrorism and things like that. The firearms community will tell you that, as a sport and a hobby, target shooting has developed beyond all measure as a leisure pursuit that people want to undertake. I struggle to understand some of the uses of firearms for target shooting, as will somebody who sits at the front desk of an enquiry office. It is a really specialised subject now, in a way that requiring a firearm for vermin control or something like that simply is not.

Mr Bradley: Somebody sitting at the front desk of a police station, as you described them, knows the people in their community, whereas somebody sitting in Belfast, who does not know Adam from Paul and makes a decision based on what is written down, does not. You had the local knowledge that you do not have now. By your own admission, you are now way behind time in your firearms licensing. It has not been cost-efficient since you centralised it.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Again, I have to disagree with you. Very few officers consistently sit behind desks in front enquiry offices. The investigations that we are required to undertake, particularly in complex cases, are really significant and often require reviews of not just where somebody lives but who they live with, their circumstances and how the firearm is stored. We have moved to a system that, while not perfect, is much more secure and safer for the community than it was all those years ago.

The HMIC said to us today that it has not found inefficiencies in our processes. We have said that, when the review completes, if the deep-dive review states that we are doing it all wrong and that we should do it a different way, we would, of course, look at it. However, we have had five reviews in seven years.

I mentioned that we had implemented almost all of the recommendations. I left out the one that we have not implemented, which is that, since as long ago as 2018, the reviews have been telling us to move to a cost-neutral position, but we have not achieved that.

Mr Bradley: I have one other point. Most of the other police forces in the UK operate in a city that has a population far greater than that of Northern Ireland, whereas you have a raft of rural areas but operate centrally, in Belfast or wherever, and that is not comparable.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: HMIC said in its review documentation that it had found that we deal with an extraordinary number of firearms — the equivalent of that found in a metropolitan environment — and that few other forces operate in such an environment. HMIC noted that and said, "You are doing work in a community that is both rural and urban that is reflective of the largest metropolitan area".

Mr Bradley: Yes. That makes my point. You are dealing with the whole of Northern Ireland, which is a vast area. In a metropolitan area, people know one another. However, you do not know whom I live with or whether I live with anybody — you know nothing about me — so how can you say whether I am a fit person to hold a firearm?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Because we have systems and processes through which we review that if you apply for a firearm. Every step that we take is based on public safety. None of us around the table wants to see a firearm go into the community to a person who is not fit and proper or does not have good reason to hold it, because the consequences of that are beyond measure when it comes to the risk to public safety. I assure you that, when an incident happens, every member of my team feels it, asking, "Did we push that certificate through? Are we responsible for that?". I have apologised and will gladly apologise again for the delays that people are experiencing, but I must put public safety first, because the impact of a firearm being misused in the community is beyond appalling.

Mr Bradley: I agree with you about public safety, but I do not agree about other things. The inefficiency of the system does not reflect the efficiency of your officers; that is my final word on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, Maurice.

You talk about the cost recovery model, but you are adding the costs of seizures, prep for appeals and article 13 letters. Does that not move the goalposts?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: One thing that we have undertaken to do around the consultation is to listen to what people have to say and be absolutely clear on what is and is not included. The figures that we have arrived at reflect what, we think, it would cost to run a cost-neutral firearms-licensing process; that cost-neutral process is what it is primarily about. We mentioned that it costs £204 for a licence in England and Wales. We have no figure in our minds of what we would like the price to be — the process needs to be cost-neutral — but, if it is £204 and you then pay for your medical certificate, you are not far off spending £240 or £250, whereas, in Northern Ireland, we continue to pay for the medical certificates as part of the process. It was a consultation for a reason: we are happy to work with you, the Department of Justice and our partners, including those who are here and those who are watching online.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I have one more question. What will you do with the responses that you have collated? Where will they go?

Mr George: As I said, we received about 1,000 responses. I again thank the people who gave their time to respond, and I understand the frustration at the decision. We will use the responses — we will listen to the concerns raised and analyse them for themes as we move forward in our engagement — to understand what we can do differently. Finally, while I acknowledge that this is not ideal, I encourage individuals and organisations to respond to a future consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Patsy, do you want to come in for a quick one?

Mr McGlone: A wee quickie. I have seen how the prepopulated system works. Dealers have shown me that, and it seems to work well, but someone mentioned — I do not know whether this is anecdotal — that, at the other end, you still use paper. In other words, the prepopulated system is great, but is the same prepopulated system used at the other end to process the firearms certificate?

Chief Superintendent Roberts: We see the same. As I said earlier, one of the benefits of the system is that, when we do variations, it fills in all the personal details and everything else for somebody. For example, if there is an issue and we need to move to a complex case, we start to fill in the forms. Some of them are done manually, and some are done online, depending on the nature of the form, but the overwhelming amount of work is done on the electronic system. It is not as if we print something and then start filling it in again.

Mr McGlone: OK. It is just that someone had mentioned that to me. Thanks very much.

I will make the point that, in England and Wales, it costs £204 for the initial licence for a new applicant and £135 for a renewal.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Yes.

Mr McGlone: That is a big difference from what is being suggested here.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: I looked at the fees earlier. There is a bewildering variety of fees for different things. It is structured completely differently. It is £200 for a shotgun, for example.

Mr McGlone: Yes, and the renewal is less. Thank you for your time.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thanks very much for your attendance today. Everyone who wanted to ask a question has asked it. Thank you very much for your answers. I wish you every success with the next steps and with the consultation with the community, the firearms fraternity and the Committee.

Chief Superintendent Roberts: Thank you very much.