The recent criticism from SDLP MLA Patsy McGlone of proposals associated with the Alliance Party has brought into sharp focus a growing concern across Northern Ireland: that rural communities are increasingly being asked to shoulder the burden of policy failures they did not create. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ongoing debate around firearms licensing, an issue that is not theoretical for those living in the countryside, but a practical necessity tied to livelihoods, land management, and conservation.
For many in rural areas, farmers, gamekeepers, pest controllers and sporting participants, firearms are essential tools rather than optional items. Proposals to significantly increase licensing fees risk placing a disproportionate financial strain on those who rely on them daily. From a Countryside Alliance perspective, this raises a fundamental question of fairness. It is neither reasonable nor sustainable to expect rural communities to absorb rising costs when the underlying issue lies within the system itself.
Firearms certificate holders are not blind to the realities of rising costs. There is a clear understanding across the sector that expenses have increased since the last fee settlement in 2016–17. However, recognition of rising costs does not equate to a blank cheque. Any proposed increase must be properly justified, evidence-based and transparent. Without that, fee hikes risk appearing arbitrary and punitive rather than necessary and proportionate.
At the heart of the problem is a firearms licensing regime that is clearly struggling to function effectively. The Countryside Alliance Ireland has already highlighted that the PSNI firearms licensing system is operating at a substantial financial deficit, reportedly costing around £2 million more annually than it generates in fee income. This is not a minor discrepancy but a structural issue that points to inefficiencies in administration and management. Increasing fees without addressing these failings risks merely masking the problem rather than resolving it.
Compounding this concern is the continued lack of transparency around how costs are calculated. The Countryside Alliance has previously asked the PSNI to provide clarity on the average cost of administering different types of firearms applications. To date, that information has not been forthcoming. Without a clear breakdown of these costs, it is difficult to justify significant fee increases, and doing so risks eroding trust among law-abiding firearms users who expect accountability from the system they are required to engage with.
There is also a broader issue of engagement. Too often, those most affected by these decisions feel excluded from the process. The Countryside Alliance Ireland has pointed out that previous changes, including the introduction of new systems, were implemented without sufficient consultation with stakeholders in rural communities. The result has been a system characterised by delays, inconsistent decision-making, and frustration, hardly the standard expected of a process that plays such a critical role in both public safety and rural life.
Crucially, any discussion about increasing fees must be accompanied by firm guarantees about how that money will be used. The Countryside Alliance believes that a clear service level agreement must be put in place, setting out expected timelines, standards, and accountability within the licensing system. Alongside this, there must be ringfencing of the income generated from firearms fees to ensure it is reinvested directly into improving the service. Without these safeguards, there is a real risk that additional funds will fail to deliver meaningful improvements, and that the system will simply fall back into the same pattern of inefficiency and delay.
It is also important to note that a formal consultation on these proposals is expected. The Countryside Alliance will engage fully with that process and, once the consultation is published, will issue detailed guidance to members and stakeholders to ensure that rural voices are clearly heard and effectively represented.
The current debate should therefore not be framed simply as a question of raising revenue. Instead, it must be seen as an opportunity to undertake meaningful reform. Law-abiding firearms users are not responsible for the shortcomings of the licensing system, yet they are being asked to pay more to compensate for them. This approach risks undermining confidence, penalising responsible individuals and diverting attention from the need for genuine structural improvements.
A more constructive path forward would focus on transparency, efficiency and engagement. Policymakers must first establish a clear understanding of the true administrative costs involved, ensure that rural stakeholders are properly consulted, and prioritise reforms that improve the system’s performance. Only then can any discussion of fees be considered fair and proportionate.
Ultimately, rural communities are not the problem: they are being affected by a system that is no longer fit for purpose. The concerns raised by Patsy McGlone reflect a wider unease that these communities are being unfairly targeted rather than supported. If there is to be lasting progress, it must begin with fixing the system itself, not by placing an ever-greater financial burden on those who depend on it.