Department for Work and Pensions

Debate between Mark Garnier and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for securing this debate. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on a great Conservative gain and to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an SNP hold, and I congratulate them both on their maiden speeches. I welcome the opportunity to challenge the Minister on her Department’s spending policies and performance.

We cannot pretend that welfare reform is not difficult to achieve. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said recently:

“When I speak to former Welfare Secretaries, I hear the same thing again and again. Welfare reform is hard. You will be hated.”

That is why we offered our support to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), when she attempted to bring down the benefits bill, because it was the right thing to do.

Everyone is paying more in tax to pay benefits to others. That is not fair, and it needs to change. When it comes to our welfare system, we need to be clear what we want from it. The system should be there to help people when they fall into difficulty; at the same time, it should help the most vulnerable people in our society. There are many people who simply cannot work, and they must be protected. However, we have got to a state in which too many people are reliant on the benefits system.

Let us take a look at where we have got to today. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. Unemployment was at 4.1%, and youth unemployment was at 14%. Some 6.8 million people were claiming universal credit, and 3.5 million people were claiming personal independence payments. Twenty months later, after Labour came to power, inflation has risen to 2.8%. Unemployment has risen to 4.9%, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. Some 7.9 million people are claiming universal credit, which is 1.1 million more people, and 3.9 million people are claiming PIP—that is 400,000 more people. That is unsustainable.

How have we got to this position? Part of it is down to the Government’s policies around employment. The increase in employer national insurance contributions to 15% has added more costs to businesses. That means that many businesses have had to make redundancies and are hiring fewer people than before. That is especially affecting young people, hence why we now have higher youth unemployment than the European average. That is not a good thing after 20 months in power. At the same time, the Government introduced the Employment Rights Act 2025, adding even more costs and complexities to businesses. These costs to businesses are estimated at £5 billion.

When the Minister closes the debate, I am sure she will talk about the increased funding in apprenticeships, which is of course welcome. It is all well and good increasing funding for apprenticeships and employment, but it is ultimately pointless if there are no jobs available. That is what this Government seem to fail to understand. This is a crisis of their own making, and they are putting their head in the sand and pretending it is all fine. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if it is all fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning?

When it comes to welfare specifically, we are at a point where more than half of all households are net beneficiaries of benefits. Again, that is unsustainable. The Government had the chance to reduce the benefits bill, and the Leader of the Opposition pledged our party’s support in doing that. However, the Government could not face down their own Back Benchers, so we are left waiting for the Timms review of PIP to report in the autumn, which may not even suggest making the necessary savings we should all make on PIP.

In this year alone, PIP will cost the Department an extra £3.5 billion, and universal credit will cost nearly £9 billion extra. If we stay on this trajectory, the health and disability-related benefits bill could reach nearly £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. We should be acting now; instead, we are left with dither and delay.

Finally, we need to talk about fraud, which is becoming ever more pervasive—the National Audit Office found that it cost the public sector between £55 billion and £81 billion in 2023-24. That figure continues to increase year on year, so there is a real need to tackle fraud and ensure that public money is allocated correctly.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I am not going to give way, because I have very limited time—my apologies.

When it comes to fraud and error in the DWP specifically, the Department’s own statistics estimate that around £9.9 billion is overpaid in benefits each year. Two thirds of those overpayments are for universal credit claims, so I hope the Minister will explain why fraud and error are particularly high for universal credit claims and what steps are being taken. In 2017, there were 7,840 convictions for benefit fraud; last year, there were 461. That is a 94% decline in convictions, and fewer than 600 individuals have been convicted in total since the general election. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that we should be making an example of benefit cheats in the courts to disincentivise others.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end of my speech. Under this Government, hard-working taxpayers are being asked to pay more. Many people would hope that that money would be going towards—for example—increasing the defence budget, but as this estimates day debate has highlighted, it is going to the DWP budget instead. The Government know that this is not right; indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right when she said that the Government

“must not…duck the big challenges facing this country”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 164.]

However, when it came to making the tough decisions, they bottled it every time. Maybe the next Government, led by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), will do better. In his speech yesterday, he said that he would control the welfare bill, and told us to “imagine”. We on the Conservative Benches hope that his promises do not turn out to be imaginary.

Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

Debate between Mark Garnier and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I have campaigned for medical markers for at least 20 years, long before the technology that now exists to do them digitally, which of course makes the whole thing far easier than having to put them on manually. In those early days, a few put them on manually, but now, with digital technology, there is no reason why the Government could not have an agreement with the BMA that all GPs and some other health professionals should put them on digitally. To add to what the hon. Member said in her excellent speech, I am chair of the all-party group on shooting and conservation. To make it absolutely clear where I am coming from, I have been a shotgun and firearms certificate holder for over 50 years.

I have been campaigning with the BASC on the issue of medical markers for many years, and have written articles and delivered speeches on the subject, so it is not a new one for me. I fully support a strict licensing system that works effectively for everyone—the police, firearms and shotgun certificate holders and, most importantly, the wider public, our constituency—because it is in no one’s interest that we should have any of the tragic incidents that the hon. Lady so powerfully alluded to. If we had a proper firearms certificate system with medical markers, then clearly, as she demonstrated, some of the tragedies could possibly have been avoided, so I wholly support her in that.

The terrible incident at Epsom college highlights exactly why we need a robust system of medical markers. I will explain a little more how it works. The current two-stage system makes it possible without adding any financial burdens to the GP. When a patient comes in for a consultation with the GP, the medical marker automatically flags up on his or her screen that Mr X or Ms X has a firearms or shotgun certificate, and the GP considers what they have come to see them about. If it is a medical condition such as a propensity to wanting to commit suicide or manic depression, or if domestic violence is involved, that would automatically flag up in the GP’s mind whether the person was a suitable person at that time to be holding either a firearms or shotgun certificate.

As the hon. Lady said, having had it flagged up in the GP’s mind, he or she would have a conversation with that person: “I see you are a shotgun certificate holder. You tell me you are feeling terrible and that you sometimes have feelings of wanting to commit suicide. We’re going to do our best to provide treatment for you, and it may be that in future you could return to a normal position where you could hold a shotgun, but at this particular time, do you think you are a fit person to be holding that shotgun certificate?”

One of two things then happens. If the patient is a belligerent sort of person, he or she would say, “Of course I’m a fit person.” The GP would then be in the position of having to say, “Well, I’m very sorry, but I don’t consider that you are, and I’m going to have to report your medical condition to the police.”

On the other side of the coin, there could be a more sensible conversation with a more rational person, who would say, “Doctor, I hear what you say, and I think it is a concern. I will now take steps either to transfer the guns that I hold in my gun cabinet to a person who has a certificate, to a firearms dealer or to the police, until such time as you and the local constabulary think it is fit for me to repossess those weapons.” That is how it ought to work; that would have prevented a lot of these tragedies.

I think the Government have a role here. As the hon. Lady made clear, the lacuna in the system is that not all GPs currently operate a medical marker. She was quite right to ask what percentage of GPs operate a medical marker, and it would be really interesting to hear the answer from the Minister. If he and the Department of Health and Social Care do not know, they should send out an inquiry to all GPs to find out, and then he could begin to have a negotiation with the General Medical Council and the BMA about whether doctors should operate this service when the Government next sign a contract with them.

There are two principal reasons why doctors do not operate a medical marker—something that is actually very easy to do and involves very little work. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Lady, the first is that there is a widely held concern among the people who will not do so that they will be regarded as the decision maker. They do not want to be the decision maker because, at the margin, it will be quite difficult to decide whether a person should possess a shotgun or other firearm. But that is not the case, as I made clear in my intervention; the chief constable of the constabulary that granted the certificate is the final decision maker. Of course, the normal appeal rights apply to the chief constable. If he has decided that somebody’s firearms licence should not be granted or should be revoked, the affected person has the right to appeal against that decision. It is quite clear that the GP is not the decision maker, and I therefore cannot see any reason why they would not want to operate the medical marker.

The second reason that GPs do not want to operate the medical marker is that they are very busy people—they are overworked—and it is another thing that they have to do. But if they are going to do it for driving licences, heavy goods vehicle licences and a number of other categories, I cannot see why they would not do it in the public interest for firearms.

My sister was a GP and the senior partner of a GP practice. One of her partners was a conscientious objector to people having guns, and she ended up having to do all his casework to do with firearms. Even if a GP is a conscientious objector, they still ought to be interested in public safety as an overall priority of their work, so it would be reasonable to require them to just look at a person’s medical notes and take account of whether their medical condition made them a suitable person to hold a firearm.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those really important points. I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which brings together 15 leading shooting sports organisations, and an enthusiastic shooter, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with the points that he is making.

My hon. Friend made a point about the wider licensing regime. This issue is partly about the licensing regime for firearms, but there is an interesting carry-over. I also have a pilot’s licence, and the pilot’s licensing regime—particularly the commercial pilot’s licensing regime—takes into account medical fitness to fly, which includes mental health. There are examples out there of how this can be done if we get the licensing regime right and get the buy-in of GPs.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming on to the wider firearms licensing regime. BASC thinks that there are about half a million shotgun certificate holders and about 150,000 firearms certificate holders, so this is a large and costly job for the 43 forces to undertake.

There have recently been increases of 250% in the fees for firearms and shotgun licence renewals and grants, so I understand—and I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—that the system is largely self-financing at the moment. I make one plea to the Minister. That big 250% increase came as a great shock, particularly to some firearm and shotgun holders of modest means. When the PAC had our hearing on recovering fees and charges, we found that it is much better to gradually update them each year rather than leave them with no update, as has happened for 12 years, which is why that very large increase was needed. An update every year would be appreciated.

It is a large task to license 650,000-odd firearms and shotguns. There is an opportunity here, with the announcement of the White Paper this week on reforming our police forces. One would need to think carefully about this, but there is a case for considering more centralisation of shotgun and firearms certificates. The centralisation of the police would be an opportunity to consider that. It would relieve the local police, who often struggle—