Mike Martin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  Could I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the Sir Jonathan Michael inquiry and report, which followed on from the David Fuller case at Pembury hospital in my constituency? It dealt with sexual impropriety with cadavers, so there is crossover here. Phase 2 of that report came out in July 2025, and it spoke to the lack of regulation of after-death care of bodies in mortuaries, hospitals that look after cadavers and other organisations. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of that report, but are the Government planning on implementing its ready set of recommendations? Sir Jonathan Michael’s report seems to speak to a lot of the issues that happened in this case as well.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendment and the new clause are designed to do the same thing in two separate pieces of legislation. Essentially, this is about making sure that defence home standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. That is important because, as well as approximately 47,500 service family accommodation properties in the UK, there are 100,000 single living accommodation spaces. In terms of numbers of properties, if not people, there are twice as many SLAs as there are service family accommodation properties. I will give the Committee a bit of detail, because the detail is quite important. There may be a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill, so perhaps we can accept the amendment as a tidying-up measure. If there is no gap in the drafting of the Bill, perhaps the Minister could speak to why there is a difference between different provisions. Proposed new section 343E(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 specifies that the Defence Housing Service will have the general functions of “improving the supply and quality of defence housing”. Subsection (8) defines “defence housing” as both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. So far, so good. However, subsection (6) refers only to service family accommodation and not to single living accommodation. The requirements in subsection (6) are therefore not the same as in subsection (8). I am pretty sure that the Ministry of Defence and the Government want defence housing standards to apply across all accommodation, rather than just to service family accommodation. Taken together, that means there may be a gap in how the provisions are interpreted. I am sure we all agree that the standards should apply to service family accommodation and single living accommodation. New clause 1 would apply the same concept—broadening the scope of defence housing standards to cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation—to the Renters’ Rights Act, which contains a number of provisions that pertain to service accommodation. Wherever “service family accommodation” appears in the Act, the new clause would simply add “and single living accommodation”, thereby broadening the scope of the Act. I do not know whether that omission was an oversight or deliberate. If it was deliberate, will the Minister explain why? Why are we setting single living accommodation apart from service family accommodation? It is very important that service families are protected, but there are twice as many SLA properties as SFA properties.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “service family accommodation” and insert “defence housing”. This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service pertains to all defence housing.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is not what new clause 1 seeks to do. It is about amending the Renters’ Rights Act so that defence housing standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation, rather than applying the decent homes standard, as in the previous amendments we discussed.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the Minister’s words— I know him well from before we came into politics—I am happy to take him up on his offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert— “(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”— (Mike Martin.) This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake. One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for announcing this Bill to Parliament, and I broadly welcome the provisions within it, particularly the proposal on conversion from leasehold to commonhold—I think that is excellent. By my count, there are about 4.8 million leaseholders in England. Do the Government envisage driving this process so that people are empowered and encouraged to make that conversion, and when does the Minister think that we will get rid of the last leasehold in England?