60 replies to this topic

[digger]

I for one would not have any problem with a licence,if it was valid for 5 years and cost £40 as my shot gun/firearms certificates do then that would be fine.

 

That would be fine for me also, but if my memory serves correctly as it has now been a week since I read it, the licence cost will fall between £55 and £640 for 3 years.

[wayne]

That would be fine for me also, but if my memory serves correctly as it has now been a week since I read it, the licence cost will fall between £55 and £640 for 3 years.

 

Where are you reading that?  I can't seem to find it?

[digger]

I will dig It out, I am pretty sure I did not imagine it.

[digger]

OK found it (slightly out).

 

It is on page 16 of the impact assessment for the marketing of explosives precursors legislation.

 

If the licence fee was to include the set-up costs of the IT licensing system, rather than just the cost of administering that licence, and it is assumed that: a) the set up costs are recovered over a 10 year period,  the renewal fee costs the same as the licence fee and c) that all applications are made in year one. This would lead to a fee of £45 to £615 per licence (assuming additional staffing costs of £0.06m), renewable every three years.14 It is important to note that the exact methodology for calculating the fee will be based on guidance issued by HM Treasury. The figures above are for illustration only.

 

Bearing in mind that the document mentions that full cost recovery will be implemented for the licencing option

Edited by digger, 12 December 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[digger]

another thing that would bug me slightly with a licence, is that if it is a licence to keep rather than a licence to purchase you would have to renew every three years or destroy your stock of chemicals.

[Vic]

If two people had a licence, would we be able two swap or give chemicals to each other, as happens now at times.

[digger]

Good question, given the text of the documents it would appear that this is possible as it is not a register of what you have.

[Vic]

I know it's not relevant, but on important documents from the home office there should be no spelling mistakes. Changes to the Poisons Act PDF. “Nicotine; its salts; its quarternary” it should read quaternary.

[starseeker]

I now think a register would be a far better option,far less hassle and easier to administer.

[Sparky]

Our stance should be to propose they do nothing. The whole idea of licensing idea is a slippery slope toward further controls via the HSE.

 

Of course that is unlikely to be the option that gets selected so we should also respond to the idea of licensing. We must make sure this is as minimal as possible, almost just a basic registration scheme. At the end of the day all they are trying to do is ensure they can track possible terrorists so what info do they need?

They need to know who you are, what you are buying and possibly some info to do more in depth background checks. We do not need this to becomes a licenses that decides if you are a valid user. It would be very easy for this license to be used to restrict who can buy chemicals based on location, storage etc. We need to make our case that the requirement is to track people who might use the chemicals for the purpose of a terrorist attack.

[Bob Twells]

I have filled out the public survey, I hope everyone else reading this will too.

Hopefully enough voices along with an official UKPS response will keep us in mind with the relevant people.

 

Wayne, will we (members) get to see the statement before it goes to HO?

[wayne]

 

 

Wayne, will we (members) get to see the statement before it goes to HO?

 

Yes, what I suggest we do is try and get a consensus view of the proposals and I'll fill in the form and post it here for all to read before submitting to the HO.

 

Also, I had a very interesting phone call from the home office yesterday.  As I stated previously, a very positive message came through that this consultation is all about trying to regulate the supply of chemicals whilst at the same time ensuring that it makes as little impact as possible on legitimate users.

 

It was also mentioned that while they would like a representative response from the society, it would be useful for all members to individually respond.  They can then formulate a figure of the number of people that the regulations would affect.  So, with that in mind, can everyone please respond individually and then email me (wayne@ignitepyro.com) to say they have done so (It will be useful for us to know how many people to actually respond - I'll post the final figure here).  Also, please try and encourage anyone with a interest to do the same.  It would seem that the more responses they get, the better.

[maxman]

Is this the online survey we are talking about? http://www.homeoffic...rs-consultation and http://www.homeoffic...ns-consultation

 

Are we all filling in the personal details?

 

 

 

Would you be willing for us to contact you to clarify your answers or to provide further information?

If so, please provide your contact details below.

Name: Email: Telephone:

 

Call me cautious but isnt that admitting to what we "might "have? Not that any of it is illegal or anything. I know the survey needs filling in.

 

A cynical person could think that we could all have unwanted attention like poor Vic and all amateur pyros wiped out before we get started legal (not that I am cynical)

 

Rod

Edited by maxman, 14 December 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[dave]

wayne,
 
i have responded to the 2 surveys in question, just for your records
 
pm sent

dave

[martyn]

I have posted about this in a jewellery making forum where I am a member.

 

I have responded as below

Explosives 1, 4b, 3, 4a,2

Poisons 1, 3, 2

 

I did find it all a bit confusing so I hope that's the least restrictive sequence!

 

Am I right in thinking that ukps membership runs at around just less than 100?

Surely we are a drop in the ocean as far as restricting legitimate use goes.

I am amazed that they are inviting a response from such a small group - so well done Wayne and all.

                                                        

Cheers

Martyn