Dear Rajeev
I read your article in yesterday's Guardian about firearms licensing fees. I was not impressed to see the number of half-truths and falsehoods you uncritically included from police sources - something I do not expect to see in the pages of a newspaper that normally has a solid track record of challenging unfounded assertions made by authority.
You assert in your second par that Norman Baker is the minister with responsibility for shotgun licensing. I refer you to the third page of the Home Office document "guidance on firearms licensing law" (available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... v_2013.pdf) which features a statement by (and photograph of) Damian Green, the minister who actually does hold that responsibility. I understand that Lamb may well wish he had the extra powers for himself, but that does not absolve you - or your subs - from elementary fact-checking.
The police, particularly ACPO, are very keen on claiming the "true cost" of firearms licensing is £196 per certificate. I understand that numerous sources from government and the shooting community have asked them to break down this figure or otherwise explain why it is four times the level set by statute, and agreed by the police themselves, in 2001. Police forces have consistently refused to release a detailed breakdown, suggesting that the £196 figure is little more than a number plucked from thin air.
It is important to note that the level of vetting carried out by police firearms licensing departments has not increased since 2001, suggesting that if anyone wants a subsidy relating to firearms licensing, it is the police doing so by targeting a minority interest group as cash cows.
As for the concept of "full cost recovery", and the comparison to drivers' licences and passports, it is important to note that the DVLA and Her Majesty's Passport Office both operate with a public subsidy, with the public paying a proportion - but not the full sum - of the relevant costs. Holders of firearm and shotgun certificates are not exempt from paying the police precept; they contribute to the running costs of the police just like everyone else in the UK, and they are therefore just as entitled to benefit from public services supported in part by those taxes. Nobody disputes that paying a sensible proportion of the costs incurred is unreasonable; it is, however, unreasonable for the full cost to be dumped on ordinary members of the public. Unlike other licensed country pursuits like fishing, a firearm or shotgun certificate fee does not go towards the upkeep of shooting grounds, ranges, etc. There is no public subsidy in operation for firearms licensing.
You also quote Gill Marshall-Andrews, of the Gun Control Network. I presume you were not aware that Marshall-Andrews "represents" a group consisting of four people: Marshall-Andrews herself; her husband Bob, the former Labour MP; Peter Squires, a researcher from Brighton University; and one Chrissie Hall. (as you can see from the GCN's Flickr account:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45493751@ ... 259115485/)
I am sure you would not have given space to this pressure group had you been aware that the average borough council outnumbers it by an order of magnitude.
I am happy to discuss the police lobbying campaign on this topic further if you so wish. The whole matter dates back long before December last year - in fact, it was triggered by Damian Green refusing an ACPO attempt in early summer 2013 to quietly introduce a fourfold hike in fees charged to members of the public applying for a firearm or shotgun certificate.
Kind regards,
Gaz
His email address is
rajeev.syal@theguardian.com - please help explain to him why this is full of bo...cks. Please keep it civil - there may be a chance at this stage, however slim, of him being a reasonably open-minded character.
