Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  We have already heard this evening about the difficulty of parents getting EHCPs. Even when they have got them—90% of parents who apply do eventually get them, despite the struggle—their provision is not guaranteed. The Government are spending record amounts on SEND, yet we are still not really solving the problems, so there is clearly something wrong with the system. We are eagerly awaiting the White Paper, but can we be assured that the system itself will be thoroughly examined to see how it can be overhauled?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Lady aware of a device called the statutory override which allows local authorities not to declare a deficit in their accounts although they are still incurring a debt? As for schools funding, Gloucestershire is almost at the bottom of the league. This week we received the terrible news that one of our private schools is closing. It has been in existence for 100 years. When it closes at the end of the summer, 170 staff will lose their jobs and 324 pupils will have to find other schools. Undoubtedly, when these private schools close—and we have heard that Exeter Cathedral School will close part of its function at the end of the summer as well—some of the pupils will have to go into the state system, which will put even further pressure on it. The reason cited by the school was the 20% VAT charge, which is having an unfair effect on children in private schools.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I will just make this point first. Local police often struggle to have well-trained people in their firearms department. It is quite an onerous task; they have to know a lot about guns to work out whether a gun is the one on the certificate or not, and there are a number of other questions. Centralising the processing part of firearms and shotgun licences could make a lot of sense. There would still need to be a local inspection regime. The local firearms officer came round recently, because I have just renewed my certificates. She talked to me at some length, to make sure that I was a sane person with no obvious mental problems, but equally she looked at the guns and she jolly well thoroughly checked that the guns on my certificate were the guns in my cabinet. She looked at the cabinet and at the amount of ammunition I had, and she questioned me about how much I had used and where I had used it. This was under the firearms regime, which is a different subject, but the Government are consulting on aligning the shotguns regime with the firearms regime. There are a considerable number of problems with that, and it needs to be very carefully considered. I happily give way to my fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I am sad to hear that the Minister is not following the logic for making the digital marker compulsory. Without compulsion, the system is weak and public safety is undermined, as is demonstrated by the tragic cases that have been mentioned today. A quick google tells me that there are 38,000 to 39,000 fully qualified GPs. I think the Minister said that the number of GPs using the medical marker is around 18,000, which means that 20,000 GPs are not using it, so the system is not anything like as effective as it should be. As I said, if a compulsory system were introduced, there would be a check between the granting and renewal of shotgun and firearm licences.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I missed a really important point in my speech: at the moment, there is no check between the renewing or granting of a shotgun or firearms licence and the re-grant five years later. Does the hon. Member agree that introducing medical markers would, in a sense, introduce a check between grant and renewal if somebody turned up to their GP with one of the health conditions that would be prejudicial to holding a gun?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful for the support from my fellow Committee member. She is dead right: it is a sensible idea that the Minister and the Government should seriously consider. This complex process, with a very large number of shotgun and firearms certificates, could be made considerably more efficient—the best forces do this already—by proper IT. The problem is that the best forces have the IT and do it really efficiently, but the worst are really not geared up properly with that IT. That is why, in the discussion about fee increases, we wanted to make sure that they were based on the best performance and not the worst. In our recent PAC hearing on police productivity, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) knows—our report is out shortly—we found that a lot of forces, particularly the smaller forces, could not afford to upgrade their IT properly. That is a really serious issue, because as our Committee has found, if police forces do not have properly upgraded IT, that not only makes processes such as shotgun certificate licensing more expensive, because it is more inefficient and they have to do it manually, but makes the police force more liable to cyber-attacks. It cannot operate the proper AI learning systems and so on if there are not the proper systems to operate them on. All in all, this is a really sensible proposal. We know that the number of homicides by licensed shotguns and firearms is very low in this country. Nevertheless, every death and every wounded person is one too many and is a tragedy for that person and their family. It is incumbent on the Government to take this proposal seriously. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell again on bringing it before the House.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I should perhaps clarify for the House that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the critical reasons that medical markers are not yet compulsory—I entirely agree that they ought to be—is that some doctors do not want to do it because they think it will put them in a decision-making position on whether a person should have a shotgun or firearms certificate? In fact, that is not the case; the decision maker is the relevant constabulary, and, in law, the chief of that constabulary is ultimately responsible for the decision.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has prompted the second point that I want to make. Doctors and other medics are perfectly happy to do medical checks on people in relation to driving licences. That is an issue of public safety. Why is there inconsistency in doing it for firearms?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the Minister—and you, Ms McVey—that this will be the last time. What is the equivalence between not making medical markers mandatory, when doing so would not cost anything, and yet going ahead with the consultation to move shotguns from section 2 to section 1, which will cost the industry a significant amount of money? The shooting community is all in favour of medical markers being compulsory, but it is opposed to moving shotguns from section 2 to section 1. These actions seem designed to make the shooting community very discontent.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout this debate, we have talked about proportionality. Everybody who has spoken has agreed that compulsory medical markers would be totally proportionate to try to make the public safer. However, the proposal to move shotguns from section 2 to section 1 is totally disproportionate. The current law was framed as it is because a shotgun is lethal at only a relatively short range, whereas a firearm, even a .22 if shot straight, is lethal at up to a mile with high-velocity bullets. They are two totally different tools of the trade and are used for different things.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I have very little time, and it is clear that my constituency neighbour—uncharacteristically—did not listen to what I said, which was that we should not put solar panels on the best farmland in the country. In my constituency, hospitality contributes an estimated £220 million to the local economy, and we know that business rates are rising by, on average, £32,000. An average of two pubs a day are closing; they are literally being taxed out of existence. Moreover, we should not be banning trail hunting, which adds £100 million to the rural economy. I am lucky enough to represent some of the most famous hunts. If we carry this policy through, how many people will, directly or indirectly, lose their jobs? How many thousands of hounds will be euthanised to support this unwelcome measure? A further threat is to the shooting industry. Shooting directly contributes £3.3 billion to the rural economy and £9 billion to the wider economy. Last year we saw a staggering 245% increase in shotgun and firearms certificate bills. What is worrying the shooting community at present, however, is the moving of shotguns from section 2 to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, which will involve a huge amount of extra bureaucracy. A petition opposing the move, organised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, now has well over a million signatories. I urge the Government to reconsider that damaging proposal. [ Official Report , 8 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 4WC.] (Correction) Rural Britain is the backbone of our nation, yet it is being systematically disadvantaged by this Government. These issues—from food resilience to hospitality, from farming to country pursuits—are not niche. They are fundamental to our economy, our environment and, above all, our rural way of life. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only livelihoods but the very fabric of our countryside.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. As a chartered surveyor who has studied rural properties and farms, I do not think we should be putting wind farms or photovoltaics on the best farmland in this country.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I start by declaring an interest as a farmer and as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. Rural communities such as those in the Cotswolds feel totally neglected by this Government. We talk about the cost of living, but the cost of rural living is even higher. We have the family farm tax and the rise in national insurance contributions, food bills, water bills, heating bills and business rates—I could go on. Just before the recess, the Government stealthily announced the local government funding settlement, which included cuts for Gloucestershire county council, whereas many urban authorities have seen an increase. Under the so-called fairer funding three-year review, Gloucestershire county council will have a gap of £10 million in 2026-27, £20 million in 2027-28 and £30 million in 2029-30. As a result, Gloucestershire will have to rely on higher council tax, including a higher police precept. They will no doubt also have to make cuts to services, too. In addition to all that, my constituents also face inadequate funding for education. We are in the bottom 20% nationally for funding per pupil, which is unfair on our children. The family farm tax was a cruel policy, and I am pleased that the Government have finally listened after 14 months and have compromised on it. Even though the threshold has been increased to £2.5 million, this policy will still break up farms. Is the £300 million to be raised for the Treasury really worth the destruction of the farming community? Food resilience must be the top priority. It is astonishing that the Government cancelled the food resilience annual report to Parliament, and I ask them to reinstate it.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary has repeated time after time today that she believes in the rules-based system. Therefore, will she argue for that vociferously at the United Nations so that the world knows what British values are? Will she also discuss with the American Administration a realistic plan to make Venezuela a democracy and make it clear, as she has just said, that the oil should benefit the Venezuelan people and no one else?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to you and your staff. Farmers in my constituency will welcome this change to the thresholds for APR and BPR. However, it took 14 months to achieve it and rural communities really do feel discriminated against by some of the measures that this Government are taking against them. I ask the Minister to convey to his colleague, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, that the Government should not enact any changes to shooting or trail hunting, because to do so would really damage and annoy rural communities?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in the south-west where hospitality businesses of all sorts will be very heavily hit by this Budget. They have seen rate increases. They have seen increases in alcohol duty, increases in the minimum wage and national insurance increases. Some of them are literally going to be taxed out of existence. This Government say they support small businesses. That could not be further from the truth.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  No, I have already given way once on this subject. Our wealth creating sector is shrinking, whereas the public sector is ballooning, yet the Government’s policies are punishing businesses and wealth creators. The freezing of tax thresholds is a tax rise, as the Chancellor has confirmed many times at the Dispatch Box, but she has now confirmed that they will be frozen for another three years. Every time they are frozen, that brings more people into the tax net. In this case, it is forecast to bring another 750,000 into the tax net. The 2% increase on savings and dividends is another penalisation of those working hard to save their money. Where are the incentives to save money if the Government are taking more of their savings? Finally, hospitality businesses are going to be hit hard by this Budget. In North Cotswolds, they are at the heart of the community, yet nationally one pub is closing its doors every day at the moment. I do not see any pub landlords welcoming this Budget—

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The sad fact is that youth unemployment—that is, unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds—is at a staggering 15%. Given the national insurance hikes and the rise in the minimum wage, employers are unlikely to consider taking young people on, which could have the disastrous effect that people who graduate from university or from an apprenticeship will emerge having done a lot of work, but will not be able to get a proper job.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and I agree with what she said about farmers. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This Budget was an omnishambles. Not only have the Government being dripping leaks for the last month, which undermined market and business confidence, but the OBR, in error, yesterday published the Budget on its website 45 minutes before it was given at the Dispatch Box. This is unprecedented. The pound went down, and some of the hedge funds, which were already betting against the market, made millions. This does not provide confidence and stability in our public finances. It is undeniable that the financial position is much worse than it was when we were responding to the Budget last year. Put simply, the Government are spending more than this country can afford. Last year, the Chancellor announced £40 billion in tax rises. We were promised that this would be a once-in-a-lifetime increase and would have filled the so-called black hole, so why has the Chancellor come back this year with another huge tranche— £26 billion—of tax rises? This tax burden will be equivalent to 38.3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, and staggeringly, tax in this country is at an all-time record high. Interestingly, spending will go up now, but many taxes will not go up until 2028-29, around the time of the next election, so Labour MPs should take careful note of the measures that the Government introduced yesterday. A growth rate of 1.5% per annum is lower than forecast, and growth per head is at the bottom of the G7 league. However, for the OBR to downgrade productivity rates to just 1% by 2029-30 is alarming, because it implies that growth will continue to flatline. Staggeringly, the chairman of the OBR has said that nothing—I repeat, nothing—in the Budget will score towards increased growth. The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has been banging the drum for putting more money towards digital skills and the use of AI in all Departments and agencies. In the spring statement, most Departments were allocated more money for new technology. The PAC has heard time after time that old legacy IT equipment needs to be replaced, because new digital technology is needed to accommodate AI such as large learning models, and old analogue systems are much more prone to cyber-attacks. Yet any improvements in efficiency are offset by the debt and the interest to service it. Last month, the UK national debt reached a staggering record £2.6 trillion, and the debt interest alone will be £136 billion a year by 2029-30. That would be the third largest Department if it were a Department, and it does not treat a single child or educate anybody. One thing I can say about this Budget is that it is not discriminatory in whom it hurts. Working people, savers, pensioners, drivers, farmers, homeowners and businesses— I could go on—are all being taxed more to pay for this out-of-control spending. This is not a Budget for working people; it is a Budget to pay for the massive increase in the welfare state. Indeed, as a stark example, the Government announced yesterday that they would increase the help to save scheme for universal credit claimants, which of course is tax-free, whereas ordinary working taxpayers will see the tax on their savings increase by 2%. Where is the fairness in that? The OBR has forecast that the welfare state is going to rise by a staggering £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion over the next five years. One aspect of the economy at the moment is that the unemployment rate has increased to 5.1%. At the end of last year, it was 4.3%. Sadly, we now have 1.79 million people out of work, and I suspect that everything announced in the Budget yesterday will only increase that figure. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, what is really sad about those figures is that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is nearly 5%. On the two-child benefit cap, in April 2025 there were 37,020 households in the UK on universal credit with exactly five children and an additional 18,260 households with six or more children. As a father, I know how much it costs to bring up children. It is the best decision I ever made, but I know the costs associated with childcare. Many parents up and down this country, including my constituents, are taking tough decisions about not having any more children, and they are paying out more and having to work harder to afford their existing children. Where is the fairness in this system?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is always possible to find cases that are very difficult to deal with. In government, we have to make decisions about the totality of the population. I think it is up to parents on benefits to think very carefully about how many children they have and the circumstances in which they may find themselves.

• 26 Nov 2025 · New Nuclear Sites · Hansard source

  More

  14. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

• 26 Nov 2025 · New Nuclear Sites · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Secretary of State not agree that connecting renewables to the grid requires considerable expense, and would not the former nuclear sites of Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay make very suitable sites for new nuclear power stations, from which the Scottish people have benefited hugely in the past?