Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Where there are grounds for interdiction, the Government collectively will certainly be ready, with the appropriate agency, to take action. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served as a distinguished Defence Minister for some years, that that sort of close co-ordination and collective action is a feature of the national security secretariat that we have at the very heart of our Government. It plays an important role and ensures that we can deal with any such threats or aggressive activity in the most appropriate way.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary, his team and the service personnel involved for their robust response—that is exactly the kind of thing we need when dealing with Russia. He is right when he says that the Russian army in Ukraine has nearly been destroyed, but of course the Russian navy—particularly the northern fleet, which we have to deal with in the UK—is still at strength. He has said a couple of times that Russia is the most pressing and immediate threat to the UK. In the light of those facts, does he still think it is the right decision to send the UK carrier group—which, given the Royal Navy’s size, is most of its deployable force—to the far east for five months this year?

[John Healey]

Yes.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the Chair of the Defence Committee agree that it is a question not merely of scrutiny but of approval? If the Committee, which he so ably chairs, decides that the persons brought before them are not fit for that role, is it not up to the Secretary of State to find somebody else who can obtain the approval of Committee?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond?

My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that, under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point.

The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments.

I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate?

Defence Programmes Developments

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am almost tempted to encourage the shadow Defence Secretary to answer that question, because he was Minister for Defence Procurement until four months ago, so he is principally responsible, for instance, for the fact that only two of the 49 largest defence projects are on time and on budget. He failed to fix what the Public Accounts Committee of this House—an all-party Committee—termed the “broken” procurement system that has been failing our forces and failing British taxpayers. This is a deep task of reform. It is not a glamourous task, but I have made it one of my first priorities as Defence Secretary.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Is the UK able to provide an armoured division to NATO on an enduring basis?

[John Healey]

The armed forces will always respond to the requirements placed on them. We will always seek to fulfil our NATO obligations. One reason why I conducted a NATO test in the first 100 days is that I was concerned that part of the failures of the last 14 years had led to our falling short. That is part of the inheritance that we take on as a new Government. My determination as Defence Secretary is that we make our forces fitter to fight and better able to deter and to play a leading part in NATO, as it steps up our level of deterrence and defence across the 32 nations.

Remembrance and Veterans

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the shadow Minister think that the Conservative party is missing the point of this debate by seeking to score political points?

[James Cartlidge]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman misses the point of my speech. As I said at the beginning, I am here to talk about remembrance, and I sincerely believe that the best way to honour the fallen is by learning the lessons of the past. That means always standing up for our country and ensuring that we have the strongest possible deterrent. That is why, with a Budget on Wednesday, it really matters that we talk about defence spending in this debate. This is a matter of supreme national interest.

As we prepare to remember all those lives lost serving in our Navy and merchant fleet, this replenishment would have addressed key emerging threats to our naval ships that have been exposed in the Red sea, such as by funding DragonFire laser procurement to tackle drones and upgrading our Sea Viper system to combat ballistic missiles. People may think that that is not relevant, but after all the tragedy we saw when we lost those ships in the Falklands we should be doing everything possible urgently to procure systems that can help to defend our ships against these emerging threats.

Another key challenge is retention. We know that we need to do everything possible to support those who serve in our armed forces today. Two days from the Budget, I hope that the Secretary of State has read today’s warning in The Times online that hundreds may leave the armed forces because of the Government’s education tax. The article quotes the many service personnel who have emailed me with their concerns, such as the wife of an Army major who writes:

“The extra 20% will make things extremely difficult, and we fear we will have to choose between my husband’s career or our daughter’s education.”

Labour should not be forcing thousands of military families to make so stark a choice when we cannot afford to lose such experienced personnel, and when it costs almost £48,000 a head to train just one much less experienced replacement.

Finally, there is the key issue of accommodation. I am proud of the additional £400 million that the Conservative Government injected to help address damp, mould and the many other problems that routinely affect our military homes. However, as someone with a background in housing before entering Parliament, it was clear to me from day one as the Minister responsible for the defence estate that we had to do something far more radical, given the inherent structural problems with so much of our service accommodation.

That is why I built on my predecessor Jeremy Quin’s work to put the wheels in motion so that, subject to negotiation, we could buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes. If we really want homes fit for heroes, as I am sure we all do, I strongly believe that we need a complete rebuild of the defence estate, rather than year-to-year sticking plaster solutions. It could be one of the country’s most exciting regeneration projects, but it requires ownership to be fully restored, and that means Annington. Of course, Annington is an area of considerable legal and commercial sensitivity, so I do not expect a direct answer, but I hope the Government will continue to build on my considerable work in that area.

If we are truly to honour the fallen, we must do everything to avoid future conflict by having the strongest possible deterrence. I have huge respect for the Secretary of State, but I believe it was a mistake to say that we are not ready to fight. We now need to see whether he is ready to fight for our armed forces. We need two things in Wednesday’s Budget: a VAT exemption on school fees for forces families, and a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence so that we can urgently replenish our munition stocks to war-fighting levels. Those who serve our country deserve no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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.

Ukraine

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend knows this territory as well as anybody else in the House. He will know that over the 973 days the UK Government have changed fundamentally the way in which we go about procuring what is required. British industry has responded magnificently to that. It has been able to respond more quickly, innovate more rapidly and devise what it can produce to meet the needs that Ukraine says it has on the frontline. The UK Government’s task is to be the middle man to ensure that that can happen at greater volume and speed. We will continue to do that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Do the Government think that Ukraine is winning or losing?

[John Healey]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to my statement, but I made it clear that this is a critical period in the conflict. Ukraine is under huge pressure, especially on the eastern front, but it is fighting, conducting a counter-offensive and putting Putin under pressure. The only conclusion that the 32 nations drew from the discussions in Brussels, confirmed by the G7 nations in Naples, was that now is the moment when Ukraine’s allies must step up our support, put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to withstand the Russian onslaught and put pressure on Putin—a military, economic and diplomatic response.