Mike Martin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Government Announcements · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just the House as a whole; the Defence Committee also was not given advance sight of the report. Committee members were left texting journalists over the weekend to find out what was going on. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Defence Secretary committed to the Defence Committee that he would be more open and more transparent, and reset the relationship with the Committee. Does the Leader of the House think that the Secretary of State is living up to his commitment to be more transparent, after what has happened today?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am a little confused— [ Interruption. ] If the Conservative party wants to take back Tunbridge Wells at the next election, its Members would do well to listen. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary clarify why she is criticising a deal for which the negotiations were started by the Conservative party?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Since I was elected as the Member for Tunbridge Wells, my inbox has been inundated with cases of children who are not having their needs met because Kent county council is failing in almost every regard. In 2020, 33% of EHCPs made the deadline; in 2023, only 13% did. I wanted to go through some examples, but we do not have time. In September 2022, Kent county council was put into special measures because of significant weaknesses in its SEND services. Those measures were lifted in September 2024, but the Minister for School Standards told me that KCC needs to make further progress and that the Department for Education must still keep a close watch on the council. The next formal review of KCC and its SEND services will happen at the end of this month. I remind the Minister that KCC breaches time limits in 87% of cases, misses out key pieces of information, arranges SEND transport too late and refuses to communicate effectively with parents. In November, I called for KCC to be put back in special measures and I reiterate that call today, not only for the children of Tunbridge Wells, but for all our children across the land.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Every time I hear someone give a maiden speech in this Chamber, I am really heartened by the passion and expertise of the new intake. As I said in my maiden speech, it is clear that we are going to have not just a good Parliament, but a great Parliament. I look forward to it very much. I welcome the Minister’s speech and the Bill. As is usual on Ukraine, there is agreement across the House. I was not quite expecting this degree of agreement on going further—on not just seizing interest or making loans, but going after assets. This Bill fulfils the UK’s part of an agreement that the G7 made in June, and we of course want to fulfil our commitments. However, the commitment in that agreement was made before the recent election in the US. As many Members across the House have said, including most recently the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), the security calculus that Europe has applied for the last 80 years has now changed. We can no longer rely on an American security umbrella. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence—there is no disagreement about that in the House. The Government talks of NATO first, but NATO does not work without an American security guarantee, American logistics, or the American backbone that runs through it. It is the same with Ukraine. Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022, the United States has provided approximately 50% of the support for Ukraine. The UK led; that is something that the previous right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip got absolutely right. However, we now face a world in which that support may be withdrawn, and that is not just a supposition. President-elect Trump has said that the Russians can “do whatever the hell they want” in Europe. This is a huge problem. We should have woken up to this five or 10 years ago. The fact that we are dealing with it now—well, I hope we are—should arouse the interest of Members in the Chamber today. I want to outline what the consequences may be of a withdrawal of US support from Ukraine. We may end up with a grubby little deal that would involve taking a marker pen and drawing through Ukraine on a map. The problem with that is that this war is not about territory; those who understand it to be about territory misunderstand it. It is about identity. Russia sees Ukraine as part of its imperial identity. If Ukraine exists as an independent country, then Russia does not exist as an imperial country. It is that simple. We are trying to define the conflict by way of territory, but that it is not how Vladimir Putin sees it. We may end up with a grubby deal; in effect, the US will withdraw support, and Ukraine will be forced to come to the negotiating table. A line will be drawn on the map through Kharkiv, Donbas and Kherson. However, Vladimir Putin will not stop there. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all allies of ours that the United Kingdom has pledged to defend through NATO, under article 5. If Putin took a bite from Lithuania, and Britain and France stepped forward to defend it, as we are pledged to do under article 5, we would have a huge problem if we then heard from Washington that the US would not follow us. Even if we do not get a grubby deal that empowers Vladimir Putin, we could end up with the collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines, if the Americans withdraw their support and the Ukrainians decide to fight on. If I was Ukrainian, I would fight on, because of what the Russians did in Bucha and their kidnapping of Ukrainian children. The Ukrainians may fight on, but the frontlines may collapse. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) spoke about a refugee crisis. The UN in Kyiv recently carried out a study of the crisis that could follow a collapse of the Ukrainian domestic power system. As we know, the Russians are targeting it at the moment. The UN estimated that between 5 million and 10 million Ukrainians would leave and move into western Europe—and that is just on the collapse of the power system. What would occur if the frontlines collapsed and the murderous, genocidal Russian army started to rampage through western Ukraine? If we step outside Europe and look at possible consequences of a Ukrainian defeat, we can see that the idea of nuclear proliferation being kept under wraps, which we have cherished for the past 50, 60 or 70 years, would be under threat. The lesson we learn from the conflict is that if a state has nuclear weapons, it can bully its way into invading other states. Iran and other countries will see this and think, “That is something we need to get.” Colleagues have mentioned other autocratic states. China is watching what is happening in Ukraine carefully, as well as the western, European and American response. If we lose in Ukraine, we can kiss goodbye to Taiwan. This is an existential conflict for Ukraine, in which it must succeed. The Bill goes some way to helping with that, but not far enough. The west collectively has $300 billion of Russian assets. Some $200 billion of those are in Belgium in Euroclear. To put that in context, the US has to date donated or pledged to donate approximately $180 billion to Ukraine, so the total amount of Russian assets we hold is 50% more than the total spend so far from the United States on the war. Given that we may well be losing US support for Ukraine, with all the second-order effects that has for our security, why are we not considering much more carefully sequestering and using those assets for the defence of Ukraine? If not now, when?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  As we approach remembrance, we often think of one person—perhaps a friend who has died in conflict, or if we have served, perhaps comrades, or perhaps a great-grandparent we never met but whose memory looms large in our family lore. We often remember one person, and this year as we remember, I will be thinking of Luke Tooke, a royal artilleryman from the 16th Regiment Royal Artillery. Luke was the last Tunbridge Wellian to die in conflict. In 2018 in Kabul, Afghanistan, a suicide bomber, in a truck packed full of explosives, rammed the gates of a compound, following which, in a secondary attack, a bunch of insurgents stormed the compound, and Luke died in the resulting firefight. I never knew Luke but I had the honour of marching alongside his dad, Anthony, in the remembrance parade in Tunbridge Wells. After we had marched, Anthony and I spoke about Luke and about Jacqueline, who was Luke’s mum. I was struck by the quiet dignity and pride that they showed in their son in the face of what must be heart-searing pain. We have heard it said today that if, every day, they can find two minutes to escape that heart-searing pain, it must be a blessed release. I am often asked whether deaths in conflict—British deaths in conflict, specifically—are worth it, and as a veteran of Afghanistan, I often think about that. There are two answers. One is the personal: each death is a tragedy. Luke died defending his comrades and his mates and it is a tragedy, but it has meaning because he died in service to his comrades and his friends. For the second answer, we have to look to ourselves—to Members of this House—for it is us who send them there, and we do that for our country. The greatest honour that we can pay to our veterans is to consider incredibly carefully the questions that come before us, because we will have to make decisions about peace and war in this Parliament. We will remember Luke.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  As with so many things in international affairs, American support is indispensable. So it is with support for Ukraine, yet the election of President Trump et al threatens that. Have the Government conducted any contingency planning as to how to continue full support for Ukraine in the event of the potential election of President Trump?

• 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.