09/06/2013 Sunday Politics West Midlands

In the Midlands, the gun licensing system. It is costing West Mercia

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2142 seconds

Hello once again from the Midlands. I'm Patrick Burns and with us here

today, two MPs who have both worked in France in another life before

their Westminster incarnations. Christopher Pincher is the

Conservative MP for Tamworth in Staffordshire, a former management

consultant and he now sits on the Energy and Climate Change Select

Committee. Emma Reynolds is the Labour MP for Wolverhampton North

East. She has worked in PR and she is also an expert linguist, which

must come in very handy her role as a Shadow Minister for Europe. A

very warm welcome to you both. Bienvenue.

The government's controversial same sex marriage Bill emerged from its

first reading in the Lords last week bloodied but unbowed. In the

end, those in favour of gay marriage carried the day despite an

attempt by the former Chief Constable of the West Midlands Lord

Dear to implement a so-called wrecking amendment which would have

stopped the bill in its tracks. I do fear, my Lords, that the Bill,

should it become law could well create such opposition to

homosexuals in general that the climate of tolerance and acceptance

in this country that we have all championed and supported and seen

flourish over the Year has could well be set back decades, certainly

Lord Dear, still better known, I think, as Geoffrey Dear. In the

event, Peers voted 390 in favour of the bill with 148 against. So it

will now have a second reading in the Lords. Chris Pincher, you voted

for this measure on second reading and abstained on the third reading.

Did you change your mind or something? What happened there?

I voted for the proposal at second reading which is when we discussed

the general principles of the proposal. It is a very

controversial proposal, I talked to a lot of people about it and I came

to the conclusion that the right thing to do, the fair and equal

thing to do was to vote for the bill at second reading. But I had a

few concerns about the detailed mechanics about the Bill and so, at

report stage, when we came to vote on on those mechanics, I voted on a

number of amendments which would give more rights and more

protection to faith groups, and also to extend civil partnerships

to same-sex couples, because I think that is fair and equitable. I

was unlucky on all those amendments, they didn't get through and so I

didn't vote for the bill at third reading. Do you have some sympathy

for those Tory supporters, traditional supporters around the

country, who see this as a kind of touchstone issue which just shows

that the Notting Hill set at the top of the party simply are out of

touch with places like Tamworth? there is a Notting Hill set, it is

in every party. It is in the Labour Party, it is in the Liberal-

Democrats, possibly the Conservative Party. I think it was

a very controversial measure. People are very concerned about

what the implications of it might be. I hope that the government will

look very closely at what the outcome of the bill will be, will

look at extending civil partnerships and that they will

reassure traditional faith groups that this bill is not going to

affect them. Since we are talking about languages, I suppose the

phrase for you is schadenfreude in the Tories' discomfort? But there

are a few principled objectors on your side as well?

The majority of Labour MPs like myself voted for this and the

reason that we have this legislation or will have this

legislation will be down to a centre-left majority in parliament,

Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservative MPs. I passionately

believe that a couple, whether they are a straight couple or a

homosexual couple should be able to commit themselves in marriage and

should have equality before the law regardless of their sexuality. I do

not think the state should be standing in the way of that. Why is

the state preventing people from committing to each other?

Thank you. Coming up. Licensed to bill. Police forces are effectively

losing millions of pounds because the money they can charge for a gun

licence does not cover their costs. Another policy backfiring perhaps.

More on this later. But now here is a question for you.

Could Birmingham airport become one of Europe's most important global

gateways? UK Central. Tomorrow its managers will unveil a plan to

handle four times as many passengers as they do now. It comes

in their submission to the commission currently examining UK

airport strategy. I can exclusively reveal that senior local MPs and

business leaders do not think the airport's vision goes far enough.

An engine of growth or does an airport merely meet existing

economic conditions? Managers here propose a new terminal

incorporating the proposed high- speed rail interchange. Work is

already well advanced on the runway extension to allow non-stop flights

to the emerging economies of the Pacific Rim and Latin America. A

report just published by West Midlands economic Forum reinforces

their conviction that global links are vital for the region's economic

future. The West Midlands economic all party group of MPs think the

same. For every million passengers, you have a thousand jobs. If we

have a capacity at Birmingham airport of 60 million passengers,

that is 60,000 jobs. Immediately, you have got a huge number of

employment opportunities. understand a largely brownfield

site, currently a refuse tip, could become the location of a second

runway. UK Central as it is dubbed by the local enterprise patnership

who believe an integrated air and high-speed rail interchange could

become the major British gateway. But the Green Party who captured

seats from the Conservatives in last month's council elections in

Warwickshire dislikes airport expansion ns even more than HS2.

These macho plans have been drawn up by economic dinosaurs. Most

people will be getting off a fast train to London and not doing

business here in the West Midlands which is what we want. The Davis

Commission is due to publish intermim recommendations narrowing

down airport policy options before Final recommendations are not

expected to until June 2015, just a month after the planned date of the

next general election. Funny that. Also with us is one of those

economic dinosaurs, John Morris, Director of Public Affairs for

Birmingham airport. I am puzzled where all these millions of extra

passengers are going to come from. You cannot fill the capacity you

have at the moment. We do about 9 million passengers a year. We could

quadruple the number of passengers that we put through our existing

runway. But when we look towards the distant future, it is clear

that passenger numbers are growing. We have got huge emergent middle

classes in India and Asia and they are going to want to travel and

invest. If they come to Birmingham and the Midlands, they will invest

here. But people are suspicious of that

kind of prediction because forecasts have proved unreliable in

the past. Tomorrow, we are going to be making

announcements regarding the Davis Aviation Commission. Sir Howard

Davis challenged us as airports to look out to look 20 or 30 years'

time to see what the shape of radiation might be. Tomorrow, we

are going to start to unveil part of our thinking and it is just a

vision, it is not macho planning or posturing. There are no plans as

yet. The political leaders and some

business leaders feel you are not going far enough. You guys often

have a reputation for steam rolling change through, but they're saying

you should go further. I think the world has moved on. The only way

you are ever going to justify the existence of an airport is if it

has an economic benefit. This Friday, the West Midlands Economic

Forum produced a very interesting report showing very clearly the

impact that aviation has on airports. We need to make sure

there is an economic case rather than building for its own sake.

Your proposal is dependant on HS2. That is a fair comment. But we do

have some of the best transport links in the United Kingdom anyway.

That is the point for you. You have opposed high-speed rail. If you

oppose that, you also oppose this development of the airport. Not at

all. The expansion of Birmingham airport will bring great benefit to

the Midlands and the country regardless of whether HS2 is built

or not. I was in China last year and I saw the rocket fuel growth in

the economy and if we're going to compete with other hub airports in

Europe like Paris and Madrid, we have got to build a regional

gateway of the magnitude that John is talking about to create

potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs in our community,

regardless of whether or not we have a high-speed rail link.

As a European specialist, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, major European

gateways, very well connected to Birmingham airport, why on earth do

we need to invest so much in this? And who pays for this?

I think this is a great economic case for the expansion of

Birmingham airport. Birmingham is a global city. I think the links into

Birmingham mean that Birmingham is well placed in the UK in terms of

the transport links that John has been talking about, but also

Birmingham attracts foreign investment and will continue to

attract foreign investment from India and the other emerging

markets. There is a real economic opportunity here that we need to

grasp. This country is a very centralised

country politically. You are also arguing for a multi-hub system with

Birmingham one of three major hubs. Surely the reality is we are

politically centralised. I think the point is that you

cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. Anyone who thinks that

Heathrow is the solution is really looking at a 21st century problem

because it was a 20th-century construction which didn't really

work. It started off with six runways, it has only got two

runways now and we need to realise that we have to connect our

emergening markets to where we manufacture and to other sectors in

our economy. Is it going to happen do you think?

I hope it does and I hope it happens quickly. I hope that the

government will stop dragging their feet on this. The report comes a

month after the election because the coalition cannot agree. We need

increased capacity in the UK. And there is a big economic and

geographical case for that increased capacity being in

Birmingham. Do you think that this actually can

happen? When you see our announcement tomorrow, all will be

revealed. The Police and Crime Commissioner

in West Mercia says firearms licences are costing his force more

than �300,000 a year. Figures obtained by this programme show

that the fee set by the government for the service covers less than

half of the administration costs. A campaign is under way to get the

I started shooting at eight years old. My family got me into it. I

was brought up to think of it as a way of life. I do not think I will

ever stop doing it. I like being outside working with my dog, just

out and about and enjoying like David Brown is one of the 33,000

fire arm and shout on licence holders across West Mercia. --

firearm and shotgun. That licence cost �50 and lasts five years. But

it is not just a matter of filling in forms. Background checks have to

be done. A licensing officer will visit the applicant to ensure they

are of sound mind and that they have proper secure storage for

weapons like these. It is this process which is proving costly.

Last year, West Mercia firearms unit cost over �600,000 a year to

run. But the force only recouped less than half of that sum in fees,

meaning it lost more than �300,000 of taxpayers' money. It is cash the

force can ill afford to lose. We are being told that we have got

to make cuts. We have reduced the number of staff we have got, and

other services. I only hope that the government will quickly put the

matter right. With the cost of processing

licences burning a hole in police forces' pockets, it is now gun

users that are in the firing line. The review of licence fees is

overdue. It hasn't been reviewed since 2001. I would like to

increase the fees so that we can look after public safety and

provide an excellent service to the public at a cost benefit price to

the public. Those representing licence holders

say they want more for their money. It has become a bureaucratic

nightmare for the police and the shooter. We will support the police

in their efforts to improve and remove that bureaucracy, but we do

not want to be forced to pay a large sum for a promised future

improvement. Surely if you get a better service,

you will have to pay for it? There can be efficiencies without

having that extra money. A new electronic system for

processing licences is being piloted later this year. The

government is considering the proposals. Until a decision is made,

taxpayers will pay the price. As we heard, we are being pushed

towards online solutions, online applications. But doesn't that

weaken the commitment to home visits, to background checks,

security checks, the sorts of things that really are particularly

important when firearms are involved?

We've seen what's happened in the United States Regulation in this

area. -- sufficient regulation. I think these gun licences need to be

self financing. We have got to have the proper background checks, that

costs money. Who should pay for it? Not the taxpayers. Those people who

want the licences in the first place. What is your answer? I hope

that the commissioner in West Mercia will chat with the

Conservative police and crime commissioner in Staffordshire who

has done great work in reducing the cost of his force and he has

increased the number of posts. You can reduce costs and employ people.

That is the point that the shooters are saying there, that the police

can find efficiencies themselves. Our police forces in West Midlands

were going to lose 1,000 police officers. If police forces across

the country are going to be put under even more pressure, then

these gun licences need to become self financing. The licence fee is

going to have to increase. If you are saying that by increasing the

licence fee, you can suddenly employ more police officers...

saying that the government... Staffordshire has increased

efficiencies and crime has fallen. It can be done. It is interesting

that the onus is on the police to argue if they fear it is the case

that someone is inappropriate, or rather than the other way around.

Someone who is applying has to prove themselves appropriate. It is

a curious way of doing it. People are innocent until they are proven

guilty. It is like a right to bear arms. Similar to the American

experience? We have very clear good of regulations. The issue here is

weather the police are able to invest first year or two service

those regulations quickly. -- in West Mercia. We have to be sure

that unforeseen consequences do not flow from what are potentially good

ideas. Is it not rather old- fashioned are to have individual

police forces servicing licences? The licence fee is decided by

central government. There will be police forces who are hit harder

because of this. It is an issue for a national government. National

government sets at the cost of gun licences. I am sure that the

Chancellor will look at it every things there is an issue.

Railways for children. The government has pledged a �5 million

towards a new station in Kenilworth. There are also plans to link

Coventry to HS2. Some centres could be sold off in Birmingham to reduce

council spending. Many of our leisure centres and swimming pools

are getting to a point in time where they need major investment.

Lawyers protested against proposed changes to the criminal legal aid

system. Design firms came together to show off their wares. Prince

Charles came to was to Show to present a new colours up to all

four battalions of the Mercian The merciless incorporate the

former Staffordshire Regiment and they are threatened with December

been disbanded. -- the Mercians. am pleased that the name has been

retained. As a result of the changes, all three battalions will

effectively be merged. It is likely that the resources end up Third

Battalion will be redeployed around the rest of the regiment. You are

campaigning for a Territorial Army regiment to be spared any threat of

being disbanded? I think it is very important that we have these

existing regiments that have a close cultural identity with their

location. I think it would be a great shame if they were not

retained. It is a little bit like hospitals. There is a deep

community identification, but the country is changing. The ambition

of the government is to double the numbers in the Territorial Army.

think the local community is still rated very closely to its local

armed services. I met three people this morning who asked if I had

gone to the ceremony yesterday, and wasn't it great?

Thank you very much. On Wednesday, the latest

unemployment figures will be published. There will be full