Firearms licensing costs discussed in Parliament

[Gaz]

From Hansard on 27th January... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 7-0001.htm

Firearms Applications (Processing Costs)

4. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): What recent estimate she has made of the net cost to the police of processing firearms applications. [902168]

The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker): The most recent assessment of the net cost to police of processing firearms applications was undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2009-10. Its report estimated that the gross cost was £23.6 million; the income received was £6.4 million; therefore the net cost to the police was approximately £17.2 million.

The cost and system of licensing firearms must be proportionate and fair. Work is continuing across government to ensure that that happens.

Steve McCabe: If the cost of processing the licence and making sure that weapons are stored safely and securely is £17.2 million in excess of what the Government have raised, given the answer to Question 2, should not those who benefit pay? Why do the public have to subsidise the shooters in this case?

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy for the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that we went from 2001 to 2010 under the previous Government without any increase in firearms fees at all. He will understand that these matters have to be agreed across government, and other Departments have perspectives that have to be taken into account, but I am determined to make progress on this matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con): May I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am the chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, which has been studying the matter in considerable detail. Is not the important the fact that there should be uniform treatment across all 42 constabularies and that the police should adopt best practice to drive down costs so that each applicant, wherever they come from, can be sure that they are getting the very best value for money?

Norman Baker: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the police should adopt best practice, and they are developing an e-commerce system, as he knows, which will reduce the average costs from £196 to £169, but it will still leave a significant shortfall.

So Labour are still trying to push FAC costs onto us.

Twittererererers may be interested in McCabe's comment after the exchange: https://twitter.com/steve_mccabe/status ... 4182025216

When it comes to border fees, Govt believes those who benefit should pay but on firearms certificates we pay shooters to tune of £17M

[ovenpaa]

So logically the question has to be asked why do the Public have to subsidise the Police the Fire service and Ambulances? Or is McCabe suggesting that only those he does not like and who benefit from a Police run service should have to contribute towards the cost?

[Christel]

We all pay council tax which goes towards the police among other things...I never use the library...and so on.

What about the foreign aid this country pays per annum? I think it is childish to discuss a 17 million shortfall, if it was any other cause it wouldn't even be considered.

[IsleShoot]

Ensuring the public safety is the Police's primary aim, they are funded by us the tax payer to do so.

Govt. brought in firearms legislation in the 1920's and its been the Police's role to ensure that it's met ever since.

The Police have been offered the option on previous occasion to hand the responsibility of running the licensing system to another Govt. body but have always insisted that it remains with them.

Unlike TV licenses or Fishing licenses which are often compared to firearms licensing, the system provide no benefit for the shooter like range management or upkeep where as TV license fee go to Auntie to make programmes for our enjoyment and the fishing license fee goes towards riverbank upkeep. The cost of a grant/renewal/variation offers no benefit to the shooter.

As another chap on another previous thread correctly pointed out, as individual tax payers we pay for our policing through our council tax etc... Therefore the fact we pay for a license in the first place could be argued against.

As an aside my man in Serbia has to pay tax annually on every pistol he owns - talk about gun control!

[Blackstuff]

"Question 2, should not those who benefit pay? Why do the public have to subsidise the shooters in this case?"

When you're battling this sort of stupidity/ignorance, which goes unquestioned (or mocked, as it should be) by the supposed experts (Norman Baker), i'm amazed the country runs at all. He must really believe that the licensing system is being ran for OUR benefit :cool2: :lol:

[TattooedGun]

I really want to point out the idiocy in this chaps logic via his twitter, but I don't have a personal account, only the band one, and it doesn't seem relevant...

[Egg on Leggs1]

McCrap is my MP and one of the biggest anti gun nuts in Westminster.

[Sim G]

McCabe claimed £122000 total expenses last...... Yeah, lets talk value for money! Poisonous little tw@t.....

[Dannywayoflife]

I pay loads of tax and I'm no danger or drain to society why should I pay even more!? Start with the little scrotes who theive and fight down town on a weekend and the benefit scrounged a who have never had a job in their lives!

[Charlie Muggins]

Isn't the general line on gun control that all of society benefits? In that case, by the Right Hon's own argument, all licensing fees should be revoked.