This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

GPs should get a ‘reasonable fee’ for firearm checks, argue Lords

GPs should receive a ‘reasonable fee’ for checking medical records and monitoring patients who possess a firearms licence, according to members of the House of Lords.

Under new proposals, being discussed in Parliament, GPs should get an 'agreed' fee for carrying out the medical checks - an area where there is currently 'no consistency' across England and Wales.

Firearms and shotgun certificates should also be extended from five to 10 years to 'reduce pressure on licensing departments', the Lords said.

The proposed measures were discussed during the second reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill - announced in June - in the House of Lords, which was put forward in response to a rise in violent crimes involving knifes and firearms across the country.

GPs have been involved in the firearms application process since 2016, when they were asked to place a ‘firearm reminder’ code in the records of all patients who have a gun and inform police whether those were at risk of developing a mental health issue.

At the time the BMA's guidance was vague when it came to GPs being allowed to charge for the service, but they later advised GPs to reject all requests from the police due to a lack of funding.

However, under new proposals by the Lords, there could be an 'agreed' fee that GPs can charge.

During the second reading of the bill this month, the Earl of Shrewsbury Charles Chetwynd-Talbot said: 'In England and Wales, there is no consistency of practice between police forces, nor is there any consistency of the fee charged to the applicant by his or her GP for a medical assessment.'

The Earl of Caithness Malcolm Sinclair said: 'The third (proposal) is an agreed reasonable fee for the GP’s initial medical records check and placing the enduring marker. On that, the Home Office has said that there should not be a fee for the initial check but, quite clearly, there is evidence that GPs are already charging a fee.'

The proposed process mandates:

  • A compulsory and once-only medical records check by a GP in response to a police inquiry about the physical and mental health of the applicant.
  • An enduring marker to be placed by the GP on the patient’s medical record noting that he may be in possession of a firearm or shotgun, to ensure that thereafter the GP is reminded to draw to the police’s attention any future adverse change in the patient’s health that may have a bearing on his ability safely to possess a firearm or shotgun.
  • An agreed reasonable fee for the GP’s initial medical records check and placing the enduring marker.
  • An extension of the life of firearms and shotgun certificates from five to 10 years, which will reduce pressure on licensing departments.
  • A protection on the confidentiality of applicants and certificate holders’ data.

BMA’s GP Committee deputy chair Dr Mark Sanford-Wood told Pulse: ‘The firearms licensing process is primarily intended to ensure public safety, and the BMA supports moves towards an appropriately resourced system to minimise the risks of gun ownership. There can be no half measures when it comes to the licensing of weapons that can be used with lethal outcomes.

‘The questions of structured medical reports, firearms flags and the extension of the licensing cycle to 10 years have all been discussed in the context of a clear and funded framework.’

The BMA previously said GPs can conscientiously object to taking part in the firearms process without providing the patient with an alternative.

Last year, patients in Kent were told they will need GP sign-off if they want to own a firearm, after Kent Police released new guidance of applying for a licence.

And in November, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said police departments may have breached the law by sending 'unnecessary' subject access requests (SARs) to GP practices to establish whether patients are ‘medically safe’ to hold a firearms licence.

Readers' comments (21)

  • So that reasonable fee would cover all legal costs for when patient goes on a killing spree after being signed fit to hold a firearm. Great.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Remember the monitoring fee includes the need to check EVERY PATIENTS’ notes for the presence of a firearms tag every time you read a letter about a possible qualifying condition!

    About £10k /license / year would cover that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I dont want the work and the risk - why dont they get it?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Someone else can do this type of work.
    I'm just trying my best to be a doctor.
    Shouldn't there be a DVLA type organisation set up if the Government really want people to own shotguns?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As far as they pay the fee, I don't mind checking them only once.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Doctor in Training - the issue is the checking ALL inbound letters that might impact on firearm holding to see if that patient has a firearm code.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No amount of fee would assuage my guilt of having been complicit in a process that resulted in harm, death by accident, suicide, single murder or mass murder.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Banner

    Don’t do them, never done them, never will do them, don’t care about fee, don’t care about anybody telling me I “have to do them”, I will never be forced, even with a gun to my head.

    Now go away.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have the medical defence firms got a position on this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree with above. This shouldn't be our work. We have enough to do.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say