THE debacle over the Prime Minister’s personal intervention to block a rise in gun licence fees continues to rumble on – and taxpayers continue to subsidise wealthy gun owners. Currently the fee is £10 a year – the cost of a few cups of coffee. In an industry where people will regularly pay £1000s for a day’s shooting and champagne that is unacceptable.
The Gun Control Network has been told by Norman Baker, the Minister for Crime Prevention, that the move to full cost recovery has been agreed. But it was agreed by Damien Green his predecessor so whether this Minister will succeed in doing what the previous one failed to do remains to be seen.
The issue now is what the licence fee is supposed to cover and what the real cost is.
Gill Marshall-Andrews Chair of GCN says: “It’s obvious that the licence fee should cover the whole cost of administering a rigorous licensing regime that will keep guns out of the hands of unsuitable people and keep the public safe.
“That means it should cover all administration, checks for mental illness, domestic violence, criminal behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse, police court costs where appeals are made, and a hot line for families and neighbours who are concerned about the behaviour of a gun owner.
“The hot line is particularly important because we know there are many people who feel threatened by a gun owning partner or ex partner, or even a neighbour. Going to the police often doesn’t work for these people so a dedicated hot line is what’s urgently needed.
“Guns are lethal weapons and they do great damage in the wrong hands. The real cost of licensing guns is likely to be in the region of £50 a year not £10. It will be money well spent, but it should not be the taxpayers’ money.”
I complained to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, back in February about the Prime Minister’s intervention as I believed Mr Cameron had potentially breached the Ministerial Code. Paragraph 7.1 state: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
After three reminder letters I eventually received a response from Sir Jeremy last week. He said he was “satisfied that the Prime Minister did not intervene improperly in the decision on firearms licensing fees.” He went on to say the “matter was handled entirely properly through the ministerial clearance process.”
At a time of unprecedented cuts in funding for public services, including the police, there can be no justification for this subsidy to continue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment