Tyrone countryside. Picture: Cliff Donaldson
Commodity Watch written by policy officer, Daniel Toft
Recent proposals to increase firearms licensing fees in Northern Ireland by up to 153% have understandably caused significant concern across the farming community. While there is recognition that public services must be properly resourced, the scale, justification, and timing of these proposals raise serious questions.
For many outside agriculture, firearms may be viewed through a narrow lens. On farms, however, they are a practical and necessary tool of the trade. They are used for pest control, protecting livestock, and ensuring animal welfare. In many cases, there is no viable alternative, and their use is firmly part of day-to-day farm management for many.
Against that backdrop, a substantial increase in licensing fees is simply an additional and excessive cost placed directly onto farm businesses, rather than simply an administrative change. At a time when margins are tight, market volatility remains high, and the cost of just about everything else is increasing significantly and rapidly, any new cost imposed by the Department of Justice must be clearly justified, proportionate, and evidence-based.
The proposed increase, which would see a firearm certificate rise from £98 to £250, represents a step change rather than a gradual adjustment. That in itself is of significant concern, as large and sudden increases are difficult for farm businesses to absorb, particularly where they are not linked to clear service improvements or efficiencies.
The full changes as proposed are:
- Grant of a firearm certificate: £98 to £250
- Variation by the PSNI Chief Constable: £30 to £77
- Variation using the banded system: £15 to £38
- Firearms dealer’s certificate: £300 to £764
The rationale behind the proposals is to move towards full cost recovery for the PSNI Firearms and Explosives Branch, which the Department claims is currently being subsidised from the general PSNI budget at a sum of approximately £2 million per year. However, there is a strong argument that full cost recovery should not be applied in this case. Farmers are not simply private users of firearms as they carry out an important public good through activities such as vermin and pest control, helping to protect food production, animal welfare, and the wider rural environment. Effective pest control limits crop losses, reduces disease risk, and supports biosecurity – all benefits which extend well beyond the farm gate.
In that context, firearms licensing is not purely a private service delivered to individual users but underpins activities that have wider societal value. Applying full cost recovery without recognising that wider benefit risks placing the entire financial burden on those delivering outcomes that benefit the wider rural community.
There is also a question of fairness and transparency – if fees are to increase, there must be clear justification for how they are calculated and what improvements will follow. Concerns have been raised for some time about processing delays and administrative complexity within the system, and it is reasonable to expect that efficiency improvements should accompany any move towards higher fees.
Alongside fee changes, the consultation also proposes amendments to the ‘banded system’, which was introduced in 2016. The banded system allows firearm certificate holders to exchange firearms of a similar calibre within defined categories through a registered firearms dealer, without the need to submit a formal variation application to the Chief Constable. The proposed changes would expand the range of calibres included in these bands, which would enable more transactions to be carried out as ‘one-off-one-on’ exchanges.
The Department of Justice is consulting on the proposals, with the consultation closing on the 29th of May, and the UFU will respond to the proposals in full.
