Mike Martin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is fascinating that the vast majority of the tourism businesses in West Dorset are microbusinesses. Can my hon. Friend think of a worse policy for those businesses than reducing the NI threshold to the level it was reduced to in the Budget? Can he think of a policy that would do more economic damage to the hospitality sector in his constituency?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It is as pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing the debate. Few topics are more important for the armed forces than recruitment and its partner, retention, which the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) ably articulated. I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson today but I am also a proud former soldier. I will try to encompass the whole of the armed forces in my remarks, but my natural tendency is to substitute the word “Army” because that is where I was shaped as a young man. The Army is on its knees. The cuts it faced under the previous Government were as merciless as they were reckless: 10,000 soldiers were cut from the Army, in addition to failing recruitment. The latter has continued and we have lost 2,000 members of the Army since the general election. We are left with the smallest Army since the 1790s. As we know, that is while a war is happening on NATO’s border in Ukraine. I would argue that that decline in our Army has left us dangerously exposed. In addition, only 75% of our troops are medically deployable. When we look at the size of the recruited Army, that is a deployable force of only 52,000, which is incredibly small when one considers how dangerous the world is at the moment. Depending on which figures are to be believed, Russia, by contrast, has 750,000 troops in Ukraine. There is a glaring mismatch. We saw some of that play out in conversations around the coalition of the willing, and whether we could put troops alongside allies in Ukraine. As some other hon. Members have mentioned, it is not just the UK; other European forces also suffer from smaller armies than they should have and problems with recruitment. I am sorry to repeat the words of the Minister back at him, but recently he told the Defence Committee that “more work is needed” to ensure that the UK is ready to fight an enduring war. I would contrast that with the national security strategy published yesterday, which says that we need to be ready to defend our homeland now. I encourage the Government to take away the juxtaposition of those statements and respond. We often hear people say in the media, “Do we need soldiers in an age of cyber, information and space? Perhaps we don’t need people anymore.” This is the siren call about how technology will solve our military problems, but the answer is: yes, we do need those people. There are no alternatives to having boots on the ground. It is only troops that can take and hold territory—and the last time I checked, land is where everybody lives, so that is the decisive domain in warfare. Perhaps more importantly, when we look at how dangerous the world is at the moment, ground troops are what deter, more so than any other type of force—and I for one can think of nothing scarier than a division of Northumbrians, Mackems and Geordies facing me. [ Laughter. ] That is why—from jokes to serious policy—the Liberal Democrats are proposing to reverse the Conservative cuts of 10,000 to our Army. I note that the Government hinted in the strategic defence review recently that they might increase the size of the Army at some point—I think the wording was that it would be desirable—but that this must of course fit within our financial envelope. With the new announcement of 3.5% on core defence expenditure, perhaps we could accelerate some of that increase in the size of the Army, because although the SDR was a very good document, I think it represents jam tomorrow, and I would argue that the threat is today—as I think the Government would also accept. In addition to reversing those cuts, the Liberal Democrats would focus on the recruitment problem. Although the pay increases are welcome to our hard-working armed forces—indeed, we also welcome that as Liberal Democrats —we would argue that specific recruitment and retention bonuses would help to accelerate recruitment into the forces. We therefore propose a £10,000 bonus for new recruits who complete their phase 1 and phase 2 training and then serve for two years—that is, their initial commitment. We would also pledge a further £20,000 bonus for those who have left the forces and then return. We could then get them in already trained, so to speak; they would just need to do their annual training to get back up to speed. Those two things, coupled with some of the pay increases that have come through recently, would help with the recruitment pipeline. As hon. Members have said, recruitment into our armed forces in the north-east accounts for a disproportionate share of the total, with the region contributing 7.3% of new recruits despite accounting for only 4.6% of the working-age population. It is also the region with the highest rate of per capita recruitment in the country. This reflects a deep sense of pride and patriotism, which I saw for myself when serving in Afghanistan alongside members of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who are so distinguishable by their headdress—a red hackle, in Labour colours, appropriately for today. But we cannot rely just on the north-east, nor can we ask more of our forces without giving them the support that we need, and this is where we come to retention. So many forces personnel are leaving because of the conditions they face. I would like to focus on two things. The first is an issue that we have explored repeatedly, but where things have perhaps not improved as quickly as we think they should have: bullying and harassment, particularly —almost exclusively—of female recruits and women in the armed forces. This was laid out comprehensively in the Atherton report, and recently we had the service chiefs in front of the Defence Committee, which I sit on. I questioned General Sir Roly Walker, the Chief of the General Staff, on this, and I read out to him some accounts. One woman described being pinned down and assaulted in front of a senior officer, yet nothing was done about it. That was just one example. How can we expect women to remain in the armed forces when they are not respected for the important contributions that they make? Obviously, this is a cross-party issue; no party would seek to make political capital out of it. We all agree that it is completely unacceptable. But I urge the current Government to continue to push hard on it and to make sure that the service chiefs understand that it is a political priority and a leadership issue. I will conclude now. We have discussed a plethora of issues and there have been many good suggestions from across the House today. Some of the failures reek of apathy, which I hope is being corrected. I hope that we are going forward into a new era of better funding and greater focus on some of the recruitment and retention problems that the armed forces have faced. Unless we take action, we will fail those people who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister is aware that the UK is one of only three countries in Europe that does not offer a lower rate of VAT for hospitality and tourism. For example, France, Italy and Spain charge only 10% on those sectors. Will he consider lowering the rate for those sectors as part of the UK’s VAT regime to give our high streets the boost they need?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can actually give the hon. Lady a very specific time: it is 21 months to the day since this Act received Royal Assent. If the Minister would be so gracious, we might have from her either a time for commencement or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow says, a specific problem that is stopping the Act being commenced, rather than some of the more general responses we have had to date. I am doubly disappointed that although this Act was passed in a previous Parliament—expressing the unanimous will of Parliament, as it passed without a Division—it is entirely commensurate with the Labour Government’s policy to halve violence against women and girls. Harassment and violence are on a continuum and a spectrum. One of the things we are trying to do is to change the culture of men in how they act towards women; this Act is a part of that and really does contribute to the Labour Government’s priorities and manifesto. Indeed, the Minister for VAWG sat on the Public Bill Committee for the Act in 2023 and said that the Labour party would work with the then Conservative Government to ensure that the Bill passed without a Division, and so it did. The Government have signalled that they will vote against new clause 43, which has been selected for a vote tonight. When the new clause has cross-party support and the original Act had unanimous cross-party support, why will the Government vote against the new clause? It seems to me that they are voting against their own manifesto and their own commitments while in opposition. That is difficult to understand, because I think we all want the same thing. I will conclude. Implementing the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act is an important step in helping the Labour Government to achieve their own manifesto commitments. Let this not be another speech without action. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote for new clause 43.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Before Christmas, Lord Robertson, who is leading the strategic defence review, came before the Defence Committee and told us that he could not guarantee that the strategic outcomes from the review would be fully funded. Recently, we have also heard in media reports that the review might be delayed until the autumn—a delay of six months. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state categorically to the House that the strategic defence review, with its important requirements for the defence of our nation, will be fully funded and delivered on time?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this debate and hon. Members on both sides of the House on their fine speeches. I will touch on some of the same themes, not only because of the gravity of the topic, but because of the clarity of the problems and some of the solutions. In 2023, over 600 million women and girls lived within 30 miles of a conflict. That figure is 40% higher than it was in 2015. The world is burning. Israel, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and the Congo— that is just a short list I sketched out from the small number of speeches we have heard, but I could fill a 10-minute speech with a list of the areas around the world where violence is being inflicted against women and girls in conflict. As many hon. Members throughout the House have said, it is women, girls and children who suffer disproportionately in conflict. Gender roles tend to become more extreme in conflict. Men go to fight—of course, that is a stereotype, but that is what we are talking about; these stereotypes become more entrenched —and women are often left at home looking after the children and defenceless because the men are fighting elsewhere. They therefore become a target and a way to inflict pain on not just those individual women and girls but the group at large. Sexual violence in conflict is a military strategy used by actors around the world to defeat or attempt to defeat their enemies. I will draw on a couple of examples and highlight one solution that costs nothing and that the British Government should push much harder on. One of the gravest inflictions of violence on women and girls is happening currently in Ukraine. Earlier this week, I spoke in the main Chamber about the abduction and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. Rape and sexual violence are also used as systematic tools by Russian forces in Ukraine. Cases have been documented where Russian soldiers have been issued with Viagra to facilitate rape and sexual violence. The reports that we hear echo the advance of Russian forces across the country in 2022; they are so similar that we know that it is a tactic of war, rather than a few bad apples, as is so often claimed by the defenders of these heinous crimes. In Ukraine, women ranging from 16 to 83 years old have reported being raped. This often happens during home incursions—a home will be searched by Russian troops and they will rape the occupants while doing so. One particularly sickening case was verified by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Russian soldiers entered a family home outside Kyiv in the initial stages of the invasion. They shot the family dog, before murdering the father. They then raped the mother for several hours, while her four-year-old hid under a blanket and watched. While they were raping the mother, they were drinking, then they passed out when they were finished, allowing the mother to escape with her four-year-old son. While these crimes have been going on in a systematic fashion, the Russian state has also been destroying healthcare facilities in Ukraine, which obviously has a wide-ranging effect. When coupled with rape, it takes away the very treatment services that Ukrainian women rely on to offer some solace and care after the brutality and depravity of rape at the hands of a Russian soldier. These crimes of the Russian state are systematic. They are an attempt to break the Ukrainian spirit and resolve to resist. I served several times in Afghanistan as a British officer and the tragedy that has befallen Afghanistan since 2021, when the Taliban took over, is immense. That tragedy particularly falls upon Afghan women. Women’s rights have been decimated in Afghanistan since the Taliban took over—indeed, they no longer really exist in any meaningful sense. That has been extensively documented. Many Members have commented on what has happened in Afghanistan to Afghan women’s rights, so I will not go into it in great detail. I will mention one or two particularly extreme examples. Before the Taliban took over, Afghanistan had a system of support for survivors of gender-based violence, of which there was certainly some. There were shelters, legal aid, medical services and psychological support, which offered a lifeline to thousands of women. Since the Taliban took over, the incidences of rape have increased and the shelters have also been targeted, looted and destroyed to the point at which they are non-existent. It is the same pattern that we see in Ukraine. It is not only the crimes; the services that are meant to offer comfort, solace and care after the event are destroyed. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Human Rights Commission, of course, are no longer extant in Afghanistan under the Taliban. One particular egregious example in Afghanistan was reported by The Guardian newspaper. In July, a video was disseminated on social media of the Taliban raping a female human rights activist at gunpoint in a Taliban prison. We should ask ourselves why that video was filmed and disseminated. It was because women must be not just violated in Afghanistan but shamed and humiliated to make a point. It is particularly poignant, given the cultural history of Afghanistan, that if someone stands up for women’s rights they will not only be violated but their family’s name will be shamed through their violation on social media. These crimes are beyond depraved. I have spoken of conflict and of post-conflict, if that is indeed what we can call what is happening in Afghanistan. I will now talk of peace, because it is only through peaceful, stable societies that women and girls—and boys and men—can be safe. Peace must be our policy; peace must be our goal. As many Members have already mentioned, it is a fact that if there is a peace agreement that women are involved in negotiating, that peace lasts longer. By definition, if that peace lasts longer it means that more women and girls—and boys and men—will be safe. It must be the policy of the British Government not to urge but insist that where peace negotiations are happening under the auspices of the United Nations, the African Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or any other body with which we are involved or affiliated, women must be fully represented in those negotiations. That is not just a moral but a deeply practical point, and it is the one thing we can do in an age of constricted Government budgets that is free and will have a definite, practical outcome. It is crucial that the UK insists that women are involved in negotiating peace agreements.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to add another example to the hon. Gentleman’s great list. As he knows, Somalia, Somaliland and the other Somali countries are organised by clan, and in Somali culture it is actually the women who broker peace between clans. When there are conflicts over grazing rights, it is the women who cross clan lines to broker peace.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I quite agree. In Tunbridge Wells, I have been heartened by the number of families who have taken in Ukrainian refugees. We also have a Ukrainian school, to continue the important work of enshrining and protecting Ukrainian culture, because when people commit genocide, one of the things they do is destroy the culture of their enemy. Moving on to the strategic questions, I cannot state plainly enough that Ukraine is fighting for us. Ukraine is fighting for the United Kingdom, and for the security of Europe. Putin will not stop if he succeeds in Ukraine. He seeks to recreate a Russian empire, or at least a sphere of influence, the territory of which is currently covered by countries that wish to remain free—countries, I hasten to add, that are our allies by treaty. I speak of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. It is important that we look to the future. In only two weeks, President-elect Trump will be inaugurated. We do not know how he will respond. We do not know what he will do. He may not know himself what he will do, but we know that he feels differently about Ukraine, about the security of Europe, and about Russia. Why is that important? The United Kingdom should be proud of the leadership role that we have played over Ukraine—from the first next-generation light anti-tank weapons to the £3 billion and then some that we give every year. We have worked with allies throughout. In total, $380 billion of support—security, humanitarian and financial—has been given to Ukraine. Of that, $180 billion has come from the US, so we see immediately that the US, as so often in international affairs, is totally indispensable. The security of Europe rests upon American support. If that support is withdrawn, we have a problem. Luckily for us, we have options. When the renewed invasion in February 2022 was inflicted upon Ukraine, we moved swiftly with allies to freeze Russian assets. There are some $300 billion of Russian state assets in G7 countries. Some $200 billion of those assets are in Euroclear in Belgium, and there are probably more than £20 billion-worth of assets in the United Kingdom. The Minister will have a better idea than me. Perhaps he can undertake to update the House on the exact scale of Russian assets currently held in UK institutions. In June last year, the G7 agreed that we would use the interest from those assets to support Ukraine, and this House passed the enabling legislation, cross-party, just before Christmas. It amounts to about £50 billion with which we will support Ukraine—a very welcome first step.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, and colleagues from across the House for coming together to debate this important motion. Sasha is 12 and from Mariupol. He was cooking outside with his mother, because their apartment had been bombed, when they were shelled. Some shrapnel went into Sasha’s eye, imperilling his eyesight. Luckily, they managed to get to a first aid station, where the shrapnel was removed and, thankfully, his eyesight was saved. Shortly after, they were captured by Russian forces and taken to a filtration camp, where they were separated—“You go over there, and you go over there”—and not even allowed to say goodbye to each other. We have echoes of that in our European history. Sasha was taken to a further location in occupied Ukraine. He was told that his mother did not want him anymore, and that he would be sent to live with a good Russian family. Sasha is braver, cleverer and more tenacious than me, and he managed to get hold of a mobile phone. He rang his grandmother and told her where he was. Through an extraordinary series of events and organisations, his grandmother managed to get him out of that situation, and he now lives with her. Sasha does not know if his mum is dead or alive, and he is still looking for her. Extraordinarily, Sasha is one of the lucky ones. He escaped his abduction, his Russification and indoctrination, and being severed forever from his birth family and placed—“adopted” is the term that is used—with a Russian family. We cannot say the same for at least 19,000 other Ukrainian children. The Ukrainian Government have verified and documented 19,000 cases of Ukrainian children being taken from Ukraine, placed with Russian families, and told to forget Ukraine and to love Russia. That is one of the smaller estimates. The United Nations thinks 120,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia. I have experienced war, so I think I have a good handle on the full range of human behaviour, but extraordinarily, there are Russian officials who are boasting about the number of Ukrainian children they have abducted and placed with Russian families. Estimates range from 300,000 to 700,000. Crimes like that do not go unnoticed. In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, who has possibly the most Orwellian job title—children’s rights commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation—for the war crime of unlawful abduction, deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia. Worse still, that crime amounts to genocide, because the abduction of children and their indoctrination into another culture is considered genocide. There are echoes here of Europe’s past. Never again, they said—never again.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Technology in Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak; I am particularly delighted to be called in a debate on technology and public service—of which more later. I congratulate all the other maiden speakers today. It is clear that we are going to have not just a good Parliament but a great Parliament. I come to this place from Tunbridge Wells, which is famous for a few things—not least the abilities of its residents in writing to newspapers’ letters pages. Of course, I am speaking of the phrase “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”, and as someone who has spent the last two months perusing the inbox of the MP for Tunbridge Wells, I can assure hon. Members that my constituents have lost none of their ability for forceful expression with the pen. The phrase “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” does confuse me, though. Why is it that they are disgusted, for they live in the best constituency in the country? I invite hon. Members who do not believe me to come to Tunbridge Wells later this month, when we will be hosting the world cup for Subbuteo. This is a big deal—it was previously in Rome and it is now in Tunbridge Wells. Hon. Members may not know that Subbuteo is actually from Tunbridge Wells: we invented it and had the factory that created the kits that were sent out to everyone. I can see recognition in some hon. Members’ faces; perhaps there are some Subbuteo aficionados in the House today. Because of this fact, we in Tunbridge Wells are particularly proud to be able to say that this September, football will be coming home to Tunbridge Wells. At this late hour—I can see that I have eight minutes left to go, Madam Deputy Speaker—hon. Members may be pleased to hear that I will not provide a long geographical survey of my entire constituency, suffice it to say that the villages that make up the greater part of my constituency are the most beautiful anywhere and the towns, of which we have three—Southborough, Paddock Wood and Tunbridge Wells—have for centuries had visitors for sport and recreation. In the case of Paddock Wood, that is hop picking, and of course in Royal Tunbridge Wells people come to take the water. Perhaps the most famous visitor who came to take the water was Henrietta Maria, who was Queen of England and wife of King Charles I. Henrietta—if I can call her that—was passing through a period of infertility, so it is said, so she came to Tunbridge Wells to take the water and shortly after fell pregnant with King Charles II. We know that King Charles II was restored to the monarchy and shortly thereafter we had the Bill of Rights and the glorious revolution—so if you will forgive me for a slight bit of hyperbole, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we can safely say that Tunbridge Wells is the source of modern British democracy. It is of course right that I speak of my immediate predecessor, Greg Clark, who I know is a good friend of yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. In addition to serving the Crown as a Minister, Greg was Chair of a Select Committee and was the epitome of the constituency MP. Many of us have spent the last couple of years knocking on doors around our constituencies and speaking to future constituents. As hon. Members know, when knocking on doors, we tend to hear the same things and themes seem to come out, and the theme in Tunbridge Wells was that Greg Clark is a good bloke. I would knock on a door, and people would tell me, “Well, we had this big family problem, and he spoke to the relevant Government Department and his office went above and beyond.” I would feel a bit deflated. I would then go to the next door, and they would say, “He was wonderful. Not only did he solve the problem; he came to see us personally to explain what he had done.” I can tell the House that it was utterly disheartening to campaign over the last two years, and I was utterly delighted when he stepped down! I wish him the very best of luck—he is going to run a technology innovation cluster at the University of Warwick, so perhaps the Secretary of State would like to reach out to him; he is a good guy to know. I would like to finish on a serious topic: the defence of His Majesty’s realm. It has been said so much that it fades into the background, but the world that we live in today is more unpredictable and dangerous than it has been for the last 80 years. Of course, there are the geopolitics that we understand—a relative decline in western power, and previously middling powers jockeying for space and seeking to rewrite the international order; I do not need to name countries for hon. Members to know who I am talking about—but overlaid across it are a number of global trends, including climate change, demography, migration and technology regulation. As geopolitics pull us apart, all those challenges require that we work together. It is quite a difficult needle to thread. With this going on, the state of the UK military is dire. We have an Army that cannot deploy a division, an Air Force that cannot defend its own airfields and a Navy that cannot crew its own ships, and sitting above that concerning situation is a hole where British strategy should sit. I stand here as someone who spent two years at the sharp end of British strategy in Afghanistan, and I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when you are fighting a war at that level and bullets are flying and people are dying, it breaks you when the country that has sent you there does not have a strategy. This is a non-partisan point because all three main parties, including my own, sat in government during the period that we were in Afghanistan. What happened in Afghanistan is not unique in British foreign policy. We have not really had a clear strategy for 30 years. It is a very good thing that the Government are initiating a strategic defence review, but previous defence reviews have maintained the illusion that Britain is a global power without giving sufficient resources to back up those ideas and policy goals. I have a piece of advice for the Government: in the review, before they start talking about planes, tanks and ships—technology in public service—they must have a clear idea of what British strategy is. By clear, I mean realistic. Realistic means matching their goals and aims to the resources that they are willing to put in. That is quite a difficult question to ask, which is why successive Governments have fudged it for the last few decades. There is an easier question that the Government can answer, and if they can answer it, the rest of the review will flow smoothly: in military terms, is Britain a global expeditionary military power, or is it a power dedicated to ensuring regional security in the Euro-Atlantic area—the area from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, and from Greenland to Suez? It cannot do both. It can only do one. If the Government can answer that question accurately and clearly, then all the other subsidiary questions, like who our friends and allies are, will follow on.