It’s time to end the spare gun subsidy

In the UK, over 700,000 people have gun licenses for nearly two million guns. The overwhelming majority of shooters are law-abiding and conscious of public safety.

However, in the past five years 43 women have been killed by guns in the UK. In at least 23 of these cases the gun was owned legally. In the past year, 75% of  female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents. This figure was 100% in 2009.

The case of Michael Atherton shows the need for a tougher approach. Atherton killed his partner Susan McGoldrick; her sister Alison Turnbull; her niece Tanya Turnbull; and then himself on 1 January 2012. Atherton had three legally licensed shotguns, despite a history of domestic violence, alcohol abuse and mental health problems.

In 2006, a note attached to Atherton’s first application for a firearms licence said:

“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. “Would like to refuse, have we sufficient to refuse re public safety?”

Durham Constabulary decided that they couldn’t refuse. Atherton was allowed to keep his weapons, despite the police being called to domestic incidents on another two occasions. In one Atherton threatened to ‘blow his head off’.

Alison Turnbull’s son Bobby Turnbull is campaigning for a change in the law to prevent future tragedies. The Durham Coroner, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Home Affairs Select Committee have all proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness and violence – especially domestic violence – from acquiring firearms licenses.

Recently the Government have introduced new guidance on the issue. But the problem is not just whether the new guidance is sufficient, but whether guidance could ever be sufficient alone.

I believe there should be an explicit presumption enshrined in law that anyone with a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness should not own firearms license without providing strong evidence to rebut the presumption.

I would also ask who is actually paying for the gun licensing regime?  At present a firearms license costs just £50 for five years, and only £40 for a renewal. This hasn’t increased since 2001. If an application is processed properly it can take a considerable amount of time, including home visits and background checks. The annual cost of a firearms license is barely a third of the cost of a fishing license, which costs £27.50 a year. Or compare this with an equivalent charge for a Criminal Records Bureau check at £44, which only requires a name to be checked on a database.

The cost of administering a firearms license is much higher than the £50 fee. At present it is estimated that the taxpayer is subsidising the firearms licensing system by £18m a year.

Treasury guidance expects government departments to set charges to recover the full costs. I think most members of the public would be surprised that at a time when police funding is being cut by 20% tax-payers are subsidising the shooting community.

The Government currently says that they will aim to introduce 50% recovery of fees, but not until 2015.

At this time of austerity everyone should contribute their fair share. Instead, a Coalition that attacks what they call the ‘Spare Bedroom Subsidy’ wants to keep the Spare Gun Subsidy.

I think that the full cost of having proper checks, before issuing gun licenses, should be recovered from applicants.

The British public supports strong firearms laws, but reform in these two areas is needed urgently.

Diana Johnson is the Shadow Crime and Security Minister