Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witnesses are Tommy Mayne, director of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) Northern Ireland; Dr Alex Murray, head of law at BASC; and Gavin Walsh, former Northern Ireland Public Services Alliance (NIPSA) representative for the PSNI. You are welcome to the session. Thank you very much for your attendance. I will give you a moment to get settled.

Mr Tommy Mayne (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): It is very warm.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is. It gets very heated in this room, for all sorts of reasons.

Tommy, I suspect that you have an opening statement that you want to present to us.

Mr Mayne: May I take a minute or two to sort out my paperwork, please?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Mr Mayne: Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. For the benefit of people watching or listening online, we have provided a detailed written briefing to the Committee, and we are now here to give the oral briefing.

BASC is the largest shooting organisation in the UK. We firmly believe that any changes to legislation or policy should be evidence-based. We are delighted to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Committee on the Department's proposals to increase firearms licensing fees and amend the banded system. At the outset, it is important for us to state that we are keen to work with the Department, the PSNI and the Justice Committee to find a solution that, as far as possible, works for everyone.

We were pleased to see that the Department's consultation focused solely on fees and a banded system, both of which can be amended by order without the need for primary legislative change. When the new consultation is brought forward, it would be beneficial if it were to focus again on those two areas, otherwise we risk getting into a protracted period of engagement, as some members will know from the previous consultation in 2012.

It is fair to say that the situation has changed somewhat since 5.00 pm yesterday when the Minister withdrew the consultation. That is a welcome move, and, in light of that last-minute development, we have tailored our presentation accordingly. You will be glad to hear that we have a lot less to say at this point.

Perhaps what we need initially is a little bit of clarity, and I certainly did not think that we got that from the Department in response to the questions that were being asked. In members' information packs is a letter to the Department dated 20 April that I signed off. The letter set out our concerns in pretty soft terms about specific elements of the consultation that, we felt, could be unlawful. It asked the Department to rectify those areas and to do it quickly, if possible, and get the consultation back out. We stated that we were happy to engage and contribute to the process along with our partner organisations. That was on 20 April. We did not get a response despite three or four reminders. On Tuesday morning this week, we issued a pre-action protocol (PAP) letter to start the legal process, and the consultation was withdrawn yesterday. I am not sure whether you were aware of that, but, if not, you are now. That is where we are with it.

I will get into our concerns about the consultation in a second or two, but I would like to get back to my briefing. We are talking now about our concerns, the PAP letter and the Department's failure to respond to us, but it throws our briefing out of sync, so to speak, because that was not forthcoming from the Department.

With regard to the economic benefits of shooting, there are roughly 54,000 certificate holders here, and the 'Value of Shooting' report in 2024 highlighted the positive role that shooting plays in the management of around one million hectares. Some £10 million is spent by people who shoot on habitat improvement and wildlife management here each year. The voluntary conservation work carried out here would require the equivalent of 500 full-time jobs to replace that effort. Wider afield, recreational shooting is worth around £60 million per annum to our economy, and the sector sustains roughly 1,200 full-time jobs.

I will set out a bit of context before going back to our consultation concerns. I would like to mention the Northern Ireland Firearms Representative Group (NIFRG), which was formed in 2021 in response to deep-rooted concerns about PSNI firearms licensing. It was really on the back of the firearms magazine debacle. The NIFRG consists of nine organisations, including all the main shooting and countryside organisations: BASC, Country Sports Ireland, the Scottish Association for Country Sports, the Ulster Rifle Association, the Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the Northern Ireland Small-bore Shooting Association, the Northern Ireland Practical Shooting Confederation, the Northern Ireland Firearms Dealers' Association and the Northern Ireland branch of the British Deer Society. The group is currently chaired by BASC, with a secretariat provided by Country Sports Ireland.

The NIFRG has a previously agreed position on the fees increase, which is that we are strongly opposed to any increase in fees without a full independent, transparent review of the necessary processes in firearms licensing. The review should involve the firearms group, and our participation in that regard has been agreed previously by the PSNI. That is a matter of record. I understand, Chair, that you may have a letter from the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) stating that it supports our position. Is that correct?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Mayne: Thank you.

I will backtrack to our concerns around the consultation. We had concerns about a predetermined outcome. There were four options, but not a lot of detail, if any — very little — was provided for options 1, 2 and 3. Our view was that the Department was firmly fixed on option 4, and, to our mind, that was a predetermined outcome. Everything hinged on the policy objective of full cost recovery in line with option 4. There has been a lot of talk about the £2 million shortfall. In broad terms, the system brings in £1·3 million and costs £3·3 million, and that means that there is a £2 million shortfall. There is no detail on that: nothing. The consultation referred to a data collection exercise carried out by the PSNI in June 2025. While the PSNI had done that, it is my understanding that it was passed to the DOJ. No details of the data collection exercise were contained in the consultation. That was another concern.

We also picked up on enforcement costs. Earlier, Chair, during the DOJ presentation, you rightly referred to firearms seizures, preparation of appeals to the DOJ and article 13 cases where a firearm certificate (FAC) holder does not apply on time and their firearms are seized. That is what we call "enforcement costs". It happens after the firearms certificate has been issued. You will, obviously, be aware that the Department uses two documents — 'Managing Public Money' and the Audit Office report — as its main drivers for full cost recovery. Were the Department across its brief on 'Managing Public Money', it would know that that does not allow you to charge for enforcement costs.

To be clear, the fees are set out in schedule 6, and those are what we pay for the application process. Let us say that is between me and Alex: Alex pays me, as the branch, for that application process. Anything that is carried out at the back of that application process, after the certificate has been issued, is enforcement costs. It was clear from the consultation that they had included enforcement costs, which, then, raises the question of whether enforcement costs have been included in the £2 million. That, in turn, raises a question around the Audit Office report and whether enforcement costs were included in the £300,000 shortfall in 2018.

We had two other concerns about to the consultation, one of which was in relation to the way in which the questions were asked. Alex will keep me right; I think that it was question 7.

Dr Alex Murray (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): It was question 7, yes.

Mr Mayne: Question 7 asks:

Yes: move on. No: please elaborate. Those two answers should have been the same, if you get what I am saying.

Another concern of ours — Ciara rightly pointed it out — is the identifiers that are required. No name is required, nor is an email address mandatory. Somebody could print off 1,000 or 2,000 consultation responses, tick all the relevant boxes depending on their agenda and submit them to the Department. We felt that that was very much open to exploitation. We raised those concerns internally, through Alex as our legal adviser, and externally with Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law. Hence the PAP letter on Tuesday, which has brought us to this point, Chair.

Alex, do you want to comment any further on that?

Dr Murray: About the PAP letter —

Mr Mayne: Yes, sure.

Dr Murray: — or generally? The issuing of a PAP letter is not something that we wanted to do; it was a last resort, really. However, as Tommy said, we sent the letter on 20 April, and that went unanswered. We really had no choice but to go down the legal route. That was one of the reasons, presumably, why the consultation has been paused or withdrawn and, perhaps, not just in relation to the consultation responses that the Department was receiving and reading, as it said that it was doing when Mr George gave his evidence.

Mr Mayne: Thanks.

We have talked about BASC chairing the Northern Ireland Firearms Representative Group. It is important to clarify that I am here today to represent BASC, as BASC alone has paid for the legal work. We have done the groundwork. As Committee members will know, I have been working my way around the Committee membership for the past eight months and have met the vast majority of members, if not all of you. Thank you for your engagement in that regard.

As set out in the written brief, we do not support the Department's proposal to move to full cost recovery for firearms-licensing fees. The DOJ consultation consisted of seven documents, totalling roughly 100 pages of between 35,000 and 40,000 words. However, despite having been through all of that, I still cannot tell the Committee how much it costs to process an application for a firearms certificate or, indeed, any of the other transactions listed in schedule 6 to the Firearms Order 2004, which we call the "fees schedule". Without clarity on the work carried out by firearms and explosives branch (FEB) staff, it is impossible for us to accurately determine the true cost of the transactions set out in schedule 6. By contrast, the most recent fees review, which was carried out by Business Consultancy Services (BCS) in 2010, totalled 47 pages of data on the fees aspect alone.

We are disappointed that the Department has cherry-picked the full cost recovery aspect from 'Managing Public Money' but has chosen to ignore all the other aspects of the same document, including, most important, the standards that public services must meet and deliver, which are set out in box 1.1 of 'Managing Public Money'. Those standards are honesty, impartiality, openness, accountability, accuracy, fairness, integrity, transparency, objectivity and reliability:

We feel strongly that full cost recovery is not appropriate for a service that does not meet the standards set out in 'Managing Public Money'.

Many of you will know that we have concerns, as do your constituents, about the lack of accountability of the PSNI firearms and explosives branch. That has been the case for many years. By way of a solution and as a first step in achieving greater accountability, the implementation of a service charter, which is permitted under 'Managing Public Money', would be a step in the right direction. Additionally, we feel strongly that there should be an independent mechanism for holding FEB to account, including, for example, where it fails to meet the agreed processing timescales set out in the charter.

In the wider context of holding FEB to account, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has no remit to investigate complaints against police staff. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman has no remit to investigate complaints against police staff, despite the fact that that is a requirement of 'Managing Public Money'. Anybody can complain to a public body or service, and, if they are not happy with the way in which their complaint is dealt with, they can go to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman. With FEB, you cannot — the ombudsman does not have a remit in that regard — so it is accountable to nobody. In January 2022, the FEB — a public body — introduced an internal complaints procedure as a result of pressure from the firearms group. It did not have one previously. We do not have any faith in that complaints procedure; it involves the PSNI marking its own homework. It has no credibility or integrity. However, we pushed for it because it was a small first step in achieving greater accountability.

In the context of accountability, there is also an issue with how key staff are deployed. For example, how senior firearms licensing managers (SFLMs) are deployed is a very important aspect of FEB's day-to-day job. They are key decision makers and, as such, play a critical role in the day-to-day operation of firearms licensing. However, on occasion, they can be and have been redeployed on the whim of the head of branch. When that happens, the backlog starts to grow. At one point in 2022, when asked how many SFLMs it had in the department, the response was "Nine". The obvious follow-up question was, "Well, how many of those nine are working on files?", the response to which was "Two". When asked what the other seven were doing, the response was that they had been redeployed at the direction of the head of branch to do projects, but we got no detail on that. My BASC members, the wider shooting community and the members of our partner organisations are paying for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Can I speed you up, Tommy?

Mr Mayne: Sure.

Given the vital role that the FEB plays in helping to ensure public safety, we feel strongly that any income derived from firearms-licensing fees should be ring-fenced in its entirety for the branch. Additionally, the Chief Constable should ensure that FEB is staffed to full capacity. The implementation of both measures should, hopefully, help to ensure that the FEB performs to the standards set out in 'Managing Public Money'. At 4.9.1, it states:

That aspect of 'Managing Public Money' also applies to the Department of Justice in the context of administering the appeals process.

On the banded system, our submission in 2020 contained a limited number of calibres, and that was done intentionally to make it more palatable and acceptable to the PSNI and the DOJ. When we brought the banded system forward in 2012-13, the PSNI and the DOJ were very much against it, as they did not see the benefits. That position has changed significantly, and they see its benefits now. If done correctly, adding more calibres to the bands would significantly reduce the administrative burden on the FEB, as it negates the need for an FAC holder to submit an online application via the PSNI, which can take many months and sometimes longer to process. As things stand, the banded system transaction costs £15, which is half the price of a variation by the PSNI. Adding more calibres to the bands will give FAC holders greater choice and flexibility when acquiring a new rifle directly from a firearms dealer in a same-day, over-the-counter transaction. In short, it is a win for the certificate holder, the firearms dealer and the PSNI because of the reduced workload. There is no banded system in GB, but similar transactions in GB and in the South are free of charge. We absolutely need to revisit the cost of that transaction. The banded system should be reviewed and updated at least every five years.

On the way forward with the banded system, we have drafted a more comprehensive version of the proposal contained in the consultation. We are happy to share that with the PSNI and the DOJ and to bring it to the Committee, if that is appropriate. We note from the DOJ's paperwork that was shared with the Committee that the PSNI has some public safety concerns about the banded system that were not put in the public domain. However, if that is the case, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss those concerns with the PSNI in order to find a way forward.

Earlier, Patsy referred to the ministerial directive. Some of our trade members are firearms dealers. Many of the dealers have difficulties with the cap on their holdings. They are restricted by the ministerial directive. It is not a legislative issue; it is a ministerial restriction. Our firm line is that the holdings for dealers need to be increased. Such a move is long overdue, and the BASC's position is that the cap should be removed completely and dealers should be permitted to hold what their individual premises can store securely, bearing in mind that the premises are regularly inspected by the PSNI's FEB inspectorate. That position would be in line with the principles of better regulation. That requires the Department to operate good enforcement practices and to have proportionality and regard for economic growth, which are two of the eight principles of better regulation.

That is the end of our presentation. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for listening. We are also happy to report to the Committee at some point in the future, if the Committee thinks it appropriate for us to do so.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Tommy. That was a thorough presentation.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming today; it is appreciated. It is welcome and the right move that the consultation was withdrawn. However, the main concern that I heard in the contributions in the previous session was about the relationships between stakeholders such as your organisation and the Department and the FEB. What did you make of the presentations from the Department and the police?

Mr Mayne: What I heard from the police was not so bad. I felt that there was a distinct lack of openness and transparency from the Department. That having been said, we initiated a legal process on Tuesday, so I am sure that the Department is sensitive about how it responds to questions in front of the Committee, bearing in mind that we were sitting in the Public Gallery. The officials' performance in front of the Committee comes as no surprise, to be honest. It is what we expected, totally.

Ms Egan: Are there any specifics that you want to draw out?

Mr Mayne: I will answer a slightly different question, if I may. We are a professional organisation. We are very much here to work with the police, the Department of Justice, the Minister and the Committee to find a way forward for everybody as best we can. I said that at the start of my presentation, and I say it again. That is very much the case. We are not here to frustrate anything, but we need to be clear. When we have genuine concerns about the lawfulness of a consultation and we raise those concerns diplomatically and respectfully in a soft letter to the Department and the Department fails to respond, despite several reminders, BASC is left with no choice but to act robustly and decisively and in the best interests of its members.

Ms Egan: I understand that, and it is disappointing that it got to that stage. I am really hopeful that, from now on, we can see a reset and engagement because it sounds as though you are keen to engage and to find workable solutions.

Mr Mayne: Absolutely.

Ms Egan: That is really positive. I said earlier — we have met before — that nobody who pays for a service expects it never to increase ever. You and your members are keen to engage on that and want to see the evidence base for fees increases.

Mr Mayne: Absolutely. The evidence base is an important thing for us. That is across all Departments in government. We are firmly of the view that, if there is an intent to change policy or legislation, that should be based on sound evidence. That is sound evidence that would withstand robust scrutiny. Clearly, the Department's consultation did not.

On robust scrutiny, thanks to Patsy McGlone, we were heavily engaged in the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report in 2018. We gave a significant amount of evidence to the Audit Office. That was from BASC and others, and a lot of the evidence that was given to the Audit Office did not make the final version of the report. That was disappointing, to say the least. I raised some of those issues with Kieran Donnelly, who was the Comptroller and Auditor General at that time. We had a lengthy engagement process, but I never really got any satisfactory answers.

To sum it all up, we raised those issues with the Deputy Chief Constable at the time. They were certainly issues that were in the public interest: for example, the purchase of laptops by the PSNI back then. The PSNI purchased laptops and gave them out to firearms dealers and clubs to help with the implementation of the online system. We do not know who paid for that or where the laptops went. Firearms enquiry officers were issued with electronic tablets that were pretty much useless. They did not connect to PSNI systems and did not connect to the internet. The enquiry officers gave off about it at the time, and they were told, "Just hang on to them. Turn them on occasionally to show some usage". Another one with the Audit Office was that FEB staff were instructed not to talk to auditors during the review. That is just the tip of the iceberg as examples of things that were given to the Audit Office that did not make the report. Yet, the Department hangs its hat on the Audit Office report and the recommendation to move to full cost recovery over the long term.

The Department also missed what you picked up on, Chair, on the 56-day target for applications. I will go into that in a little more detail. The Department said 56 days, but historical data shows that it can do it much more quickly, so 56 days is not really a push for it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How much more quickly could it do it?

Mr Mayne: It did not give a timeline. The report said that historical data suggested that it could be done much more quickly.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Is that the quote from the NIAO report?

Mr Mayne: It says that there or thereabouts. I am not looking at it, but that is a summary of it off the top of my head.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Connie, is that you finished?

Ms Egan: Yes, that is comprehensive. I appreciate your engagement with the Committee on this. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We have already touched on this. I touched on it in my questioning of the Department, and you raised in your presentation enforcement costs being added, very much so in the consultation and then into the full cost recovery issue.

At, I think, Question Time last week, the Minister raised the issue of charging for appeals, which would add another layer to enforcement.

Mr Mayne: Was that during Question Time?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I think that it was. It was at Question Time or in a ministerial statement, but I think that it was Question Time. It was maybe you, Patsy, was it? Maybe another SDLP Member asked the question.

Mr McGlone: It was your colleague Keith Buchanan.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right. OK. I do not know whether you heard that.

Mr Mayne: I did; I watched it. It was Keith Buchanan. The question was about protracted delays in respect of appeals.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is your view on adding the cost of appeal, along with all the other issues that arise, such as seizures, police work or preparation as regards article 13, to the full cost recovery model? We are adding another layer, which is surely increasing the cost recovery.

Mr Mayne: Our view on that is simple. 'Managing Public Money' is clear that you cannot charge for enforcement activities, and enforcement activities occur after the certificate has been issued. That is a fundamental flaw in the consultation: if they are saying, "We are going for option 4", which is a 153% increase, it will be £250. However, as soon as there is an issue with their figures, it will be like a house of cards and will all come tumbling down. We have pointed out, "Well, actually, you have included enforcement costs, but 'Managing Public Money', the document that you are using as a driver for full cost recovery, says that you cannot charge for enforcement costs". That has been a major issue for them.

In answer to your specific question about appeals — Alex is legally qualified to answer and can correct me if I am wrong — our solicitor, having looked at what was in our pre-action protocol letter to the Department, took the clear view that the appeals process was an adjudicative function carried out by the Department and, as such, is an enforcement function and cannot be charged for. Do you agree?

Dr Murray: Yes, definitely.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You talked about the consultation, and Ciara touched on this in her questions: names and addresses and identification on the applications. BASC is a pretty slick operation. You have a lot of members who are motivated to respond to the consultation. The truth could be that you could have manipulated that loophole in the consultation and motivated your members to flood the consultation —

Mr Mayne: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): — yet you have raised it as a weakness and a flaw that you see with the consultation.

Mr Mayne: Yes, 100%. Anybody who looks at our Facebook page will have seen that we have been out with paper response questionnaires and going around firearms dealers encouraging members to respond. The response has been phenomenal. I have not met one person who is keen on full cost recovery. Everybody is against it. Nobody wants to see any increase in fees. You might get the odd person who says, "I would not mind paying a wee bit more", but there is no guarantee that things will change, so most say, "No, I do not want to pay any more, because there are no guarantees". During those sessions on firearms dealers' premises, we came across people who said, "Yes, I have done it, but I will do it again". My response was, "What have you done?". There has been an e-lobby running, for example, and people were confused, because it had a different name, about whether that e-lobby was a response to the consultation or something else altogether. If it had been called an "electronic response to the consultation", people would have been a wee bit more clued in. That has muddied the waters a bit. When people said, "I have done something", and, when we questioned them, it was clear that they had already given a response, we have been clear and said, "No, you cannot do it again. We have to be whiter than white and beyond reproach. You cannot do it again. You have done it, and that is it".

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Tommy and everyone, for the presentation. Apologies: I had to nip out at the start of your presentation due to, as they used to say on TV, circumstances beyond my control.

The last time that you were here going through all of this, the banded system was introduced, but that was more — how should I put it? — under duress. The Department introduced it as a result of its own basic messing — it had to introduce it. The outcome of that was that it was good for firearms certificate owners, if we call them that, and businesses.

I listened to what was said about the ministerial directive. I am interested in picking up your point that it is not the registered firearm dealers' (RFDs) fault that the system is not working right. I do not accept, as we clarified, that every firearm that is sitting on a shelf in RFDs belongs to a person who has applied for a certificate but whose case is complex. I just do not accept that.

Mr Mayne: I agree.

Mr McGlone: That simply cannot be the case. To your mind, on the basis of what you have witnessed in cases that have come in your direction, how can the Department and the FEB make themselves more efficient?

Mr Mayne: That is a good question. To start with, I can tell you what has not improved efficiencies. Two electronic systems have been introduced over the years. Paper was removed in 2017-18, and we went to an online-only system, which was sold on the basis that it would capture the right information first time, every time. It has not done that, and it has not improved things. To use the terminology that does the rounds in our sector, all it has done is "remove the postman". It has not really created any efficiencies. Gavin is more familiar with this, as he is more across it, but the implementation of the firearms licensing management system was more recent; it was just a few years ago. Again, we have still not seen any improvements. Certainly, the number of complaints from our members has gone down, but that does not say to me that the service has improved. That says that members have become accustomed to a service that is poor. That is the bottom line.

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mr Mayne: They implemented a policy whereby, if your application had not been in for, say, at least six months, you were not entitled to ring up and query where it was. Only after six months could you —

Mr McGlone: You could then ask what the hold-up was.

Mr Mayne: — phone in to query where it was. Getting someone on the phone does not happen now. There is no telephone contact. Everything is done by email.

How can they make it more efficient? There are a couple of things. They could ring-fence the staff. My understanding is that a big part of the problem has been a lack of resources and staff. Gavin might want to jump in and comment on this, but there will be people who retire, leave under a voluntary exit scheme, move to another post or get promoted, and I think that they have difficulty filling those posts. What if you had the staff numbers locked in so that, were someone to leave, the post would not be left vacant but would be filled? Think back to what we said about 'Managing Public Money' and the requirement for public bodies to ensure that Departments operate efficiently and effectively and have appropriate staff numbers. Keeping their staff numbers at a certain level would certainly be one way to do that.

Mr Gavin Walsh (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): Chair, I ask for some leeway when I come on to an issue that Mr McGlone raised.

When it comes to the process in the PSNI, 70% to 80% of the costs relate to staff. That is the big cost burden. Given the difference of £2 million from 2016 to 2026, the addition of 30 EO2 grade firearms enquiry officers (FEOs) is a sub-£1 million bill. To me, that is still a considerable black hole.

I turn to inflation and a matter that is mentioned in the papers and was mentioned at the table earlier. Staff would have loved to see an inflationary increase in their pay over the number of years that I was with them, but they never got it. You cannot simply talk about an inflationary increase in licensing fees when it is more than the costs were on the staff side.

Tommy is right about some of the issues. There are issues for the staff, such as workload and abstraction to other things, which puts more pressure on the staff who are there, in that they have to work overtime. The chief superintendent mentioned that full cost recovery would seek to get the required number of staff employed, which would then help the branch. Ring-fencing was mentioned. Have they applied to be able to fill those vacancies? Would they then ring-fence those staff as they get trained up? Six months was mentioned as an estimate. Would they then ring-fence those people because they have the experience and knowledge to fulfil that role? As a former union rep, I would say "No", because that would stop them taking a promotion or taking a move closer to home. There are all those inefficiencies in there. It seems to be the case that, if there are vacancies, the licence holder would be expected to pay for those while those posts are vacant. I hope that that all makes sense.

Many things can lead to inefficiencies, such as abstractions and people not being trained properly. In my time, staff-management breakdowns took up a considerable amount of my time, which was not good for the service that the licence holders got. I hope that that covers the point.

Mr Mayne: I will elaborate on that point. I know exactly where Gavin is coming from. The staff-management breakdown happened around the same time as we went to the Audit Office. That was a serious breakdown in relationships between senior management and staff in the branch, to the point where the Department became pretty much dysfunctional. It was a toxic working environment. In the interests of building on relationships, where we are at present and trying to move forward collaboratively, we let it go at that.

On Patsy's question about efficiencies — Ciara picked up on the point about service-level agreements and timelines for a response from partner agencies — 'Managing Public Money' allows for service-level agreements between government bodies. It is not just about a service charter for members of the public; it goes backwards between Departments. A service-level agreement could be implemented between the police and the health service, for example.

Mr McGlone: I am glad to hear you mention the banded system being reviewed every five years, but the bit that I do not understand is the public safety concerns. You have not introduced a banded system in which Barrett .50 is included. From your point of view — you know because you are the experts — you are, essentially, talking about a firearm that can be shot safely in responsible hands. Many of the calibres that are already on there would be of at least equal power to anything new that would be introduced. Therefore, I do not get that bit. We heard the argument the last time, and, to my mind, it does not stack up, unless somebody idiotically introduces a Barrett .50 to the banded system, which is not going to happen.

I will come back to your motivation. I know from working with you that you are a professional organisation. It is key for us that your intention is to challenge them professionally and to have a smooth, good outcome for everybody.

Mr Mayne: Absolutely, 100%. As I said, we are here to work with the Department, the PSNI, the Committee and the Minister to achieve an outcome that is suitable for everyone involved. It will be difficult to do that, but that is our aspiration.

I go back to your question about efficiencies. Gavin touched on staffing levels, locking in and ring-fencing staff and money for the branch. We are strongly of the view that any income derived from any fee, whatever that fee may be, whether it is increased or not, should be ring-fenced for the branch. We want this fixed permanently. We do not want to have to come to you as our elected representatives, and we do not want our members, as your constituents, going to you and complaining about FEB. We want a long-term, permanent fix, not a sticking plaster.

Your question was about efficiencies — service-level agreements, staffing levels, ring-fenced money and all that stuff — the banded system, will, without doubt, bring efficiencies.

We do not know what that exchange looks like in the the branch. Having talked through it with firearms dealers, we think that it probably takes 10 or 15 minutes to change one firearm for another and update the systems. We pay £15 for that. That fee, specifically, needs to be [Inaudible.]

Mr McGlone: It might be helpful to other members if you were to expand a bit on the introduction of new calibres to the banded system. The dealer does literally all the work in the context of the current system, and, if the calibre is not on the banded system, it has to go back for variation, thereby increasing FEB's workload.

Mr Mayne: That is a good point, thank you. There are four bands. It is like having four types of car, if you want to think of it like that. There are four bands or lanes: airguns; small-calibre rimfires; fox calibres, which are the .22 centrefires; and deer calibres. Off the top of my head, without looking at the banded system that is set in law currently, there is probably a total of 20 calibres spread across the bands — it is there or thereabouts. In 2020, our proposal to the Justice Committee was for a small number of additional calibres to be inserted into that banded system. That proposal was really just intended to get a conversation or dialogue going and, as I said, to make it more palatable to the PSNI.

Certainly, the more calibres that we can include across the four bands, the more efficiency will be increased for FEB. It would certainly reduce the administrative burden on FEB and make it more flexible for certificate holders when going into a firearms dealer. The thing about that is that the dealers would get the money there and then: the certificate holder walks in with one gun, hands it over and walks out with their new gun. They pay their money, and it is "job done". The firearms dealer then updates FEB within 72 hours, and FEB updates its systems. This is what Patsy asked me to explain. Someone might have a .243 rifle, which is in the deer calibre band, and want a 6.5 calibre Creedmoor, which is not in that band, but it is in the proposal that it would go into the band because it is such a popular calibre. That is not in law at the moment, however. As things stand, the licence holder has to apply on the online system and go through FEB to get that 6.5 calibre on their licence. As for how long that would take, how long is a piece of string?

Mr McGlone: In the meantime, that rifle will be sitting on a shelf in the firearms dealership.

Mr Mayne: It will be sitting in a firearms dealer's premises.

I listened to Chief Superintendent Roberts during the Committee's previous evidence session. He made quite a few comments with which I do not agree. I will flick through my papers to see what notes I took. In that session, Patsy asked about the opportunity to remove the ministerial directive or increase the holdings under it. As the Department said, that was looked at in 2022, I think. I do not have the paperwork on this, because I did not expect to be here, but, back then, Sam Donaldson was the chief superintendent and Jonathan Howarth was the head of branch, and I am 99·9% sure that they said that that was a DOJ issue and they had no concerns with it as long as the firearms were stored safely. We now have a scenario in which the chief superintendent has said that he has public safety concerns. He admitted, however, that those firearms are being stored in strongrooms in firearms dealers' premises, which are monitored — they have monitored alarm systems, cameras and buzzers on the doors to let people in and out — and that those premises are inspected regularly. Given that that is the case, I do not see what the problem is.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Were his concerns not more about them being in households in the community as opposed to being with firearms dealers? Although I ask that, I do not necessarily agree with him about those concerns, because, as Patsy said during that questioning, the people in those households have firearms licences. They are fit to hold a licence.

Mr Mayne: With respect, Chair, we are talking about two different things: the ministerial directive and firearms dealers' holdings. We deviated to collectors there. I am directing that not at you —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I know. That is what I said.

Mr Mayne: — but at the police. We need to stay on track. We are talking about the ministerial directive, and our view on that is that it is in bad need of review. As I say, there are issues there with the better regulation strategy around proportionality and the two economic growth principles.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mr Bradley: Thanks for your presentation. The chief superintendent said that he had a full complement of 67 staff, but he did not tell us how many of that complement were working on firearms or whether any had been taken away to do another job in the PSNI. Furthermore, the cost of the backlog and staff overtime have been factored into the recovery costs. There are a lot of conflated figures in the overall assumption. That causes me concern, because I do not believe that a proper figure for the full recovery has been produced.

Mr Mayne: I absolutely agree with that. I go back to my earlier comment about the Business Consultancy Service review in 2010, which contained 47 pages of data on the fees alone.

Mr Walsh: May I comment on that one? He said that, in order to maintain current practices, he would need 63 staff. My inclination — I think that that is what I heard earlier — was that he did not have that number. The branch was seeking full cost recovery in order to have that number of staff. That was my pick-up from it, Chair.

Ms Ferguson: He made it clear that he has 63 staff.

Mr Walsh: The branch has 63 staff currently, right.

Ms Ferguson: He said that he needs additional staff.

Mr Walsh: That is what he needed to maintain current practices. My apologies.

Mr Bradley: The other point is the centralisation of the system. The local bobby knows the local community and can more quickly verify whether somebody is a capable person to hold a firearm than somebody who is working in Belfast, looking through papers and having to do all the manual checks on an individual before he can issue a firearms certificate. If that were done locally, the certificate could be issued or refused pretty quickly.

Mr Walsh: It may be that the chief superintendent did not make it clear, but those 30 firearms enquiry officers are out in the districts, so an FEO would be the go-to person for individuals. In theory, they should know, but part of the issue is the turnover of staff. New people may not necessarily know the area, so it will take them time to get used to that and get to know who the people are. Sometimes, there is a promotion into that role. The officer has had a promotion but does not necessarily deal with staffing issues. However, they have to deal with individuals and respond to firearms branch centrally, which then does a lot of the decision-making. From what I know, an FEO has quite a bit of sway on what happens out in the districts.

Mr Mayne: I absolutely agree with that.

Mr Bradley: He did not make that clear.

Mr Walsh: No, he did not, unfortunately. I am, perhaps, coming from the wrong side of this.

Mr Bradley: The system itself is inefficient. I am not casting aspersions on the officers, but the system does not work.

Mr Walsh: I attended the Audit Office when it did the report. It made promises about efficiencies. If you look at the papers, you see that the income generation was £1·3 million at that time. The income generation in 2026 is still £1·3 million, but it is costing a lot more, so there do not appear to be efficiencies in the system.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much.

Mr Kingston: Thanks for your presentation. When it comes to the consequences of delays, what happens if a licence expires and the owner still has the gun at home?

Mr Mayne: That was raised with the Audit Office. If my licence expires today —.

Mr Kingston: You are waiting for them to process it. That is what I mean. You have put in for renewal.

Mr Mayne: I will deal with the expired licence first, if I may, and then I will get to your question. If my licence expires today, that is it; it is expired. It has gone. I should have put my application in, preferably eight weeks in advance, and I will get a phone call to say that they are coming out to lift my guns because my certificate is no longer valid. However, had I put my application in two days ago and my certificate expires now, they deem that to be a valid application. It is in the system, and the Chief Constable exercises his discretion not to come out and seize my firearms, because my application is in the system.

Mr Kingston: OK, that is good to hear. So, they will not come out and make a seizure just because of their delays in processing applications.

Mr Mayne: No. The problems that delay would cause if you did not have a valid certificate include, for example, that, technically, you could not purchase ammunition. The police issued advice some time ago to take your expired certificate to your firearms dealer and ask them to put the ammunition on that expired certificate. The expired certificate causes other problems. For example, if I wanted to go to Scotland on a deerstalking trip, I could not go. I could not travel on a ferry without having a valid certificate.

Mr Kingston: In general terms, have you any sense of the percentage or number of applications that are turned down?

Mr Mayne: I do not know.

Mr Kingston: You do not get that information from your members.

Mr Mayne: That is a question for the police directly.

Mr Kingston: Given that the fees have not gone up for 10 years and what the police say about the fees here compared with the fees in England, what is your view on any fee increase? How would you prefer that it happened, if at all?

Mr Mayne: That is a good question. Obviously, as a professional organisation, we are up for discussion with any Department. We appreciate that fees have not gone up in 10 years. We were very central to the discussions prior to the last increase. We are happy to have those discussions, sit around a table, be involved, lead and contribute professionally. However, as I said in my presentation, changes to policy and legislation should be evidence-based, and I stick by that. We would need to see the evidence to show how much it costs to process an application for a firearm certificate. We are obliged to pay what is set out in schedule 6 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. If the police have done their data-collection exercise and it works out that it costs £120, we dig into those figures and £120 turns out to be accurate, well, that is what it costs to process a firearm certificate. However, I will add that, in the 2010 review, BCS went in three times, did its data-collection exercise and produced that 47-page report. On three occasions, the figures were proven to be incorrect. That is the level of detail that we would want.

Mr Kingston: If it were justified.

Mr Mayne: Yes. That is the level of detail that we would want, and we would go through that with a fine-tooth comb, obviously.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No other member has notified me that they wish to speak or ask questions.

Tommy, Gavin and Dr Murray, thank you very much for your time and presence. It has been very informative.

Mr Mayne: Thank you very much, Chair. May I say one thing before we go? Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the Committee. We will engage with the Department and the police to the best of our ability. We would really welcome the opportunity to report to the Committee on any progress that is made, if the Committee thought that appropriate.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your presentation. I am sure that many of your members are grateful for the work that you have done, particularly around the pre-action protocol. That may have been, in some part, stimulus for the decision to withdraw the consultation document.

Mr Mayne: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you very much for your time.