Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The procurement of the F-35As and the next tranche of F-35Bs will support 20,000 jobs across the UK, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. That demonstrates yet again that defence can be an engine for growth, because these are good jobs across all parts of the nations and regions of the UK, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I fully welcome the announcement, and I thank the Minister for making the statement. In an age of uncertainty about the reliability of our US ally, it seems an odd choice to be leaning into them, in the sense that we will be dropping dual-key, US-made munitions from these planes. It makes more sense if this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability, but that would raise questions about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister comment on whether this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability?

[Maria Eagle]

It is not such a step. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission. We have just published a strategic defence review that sets out that our defence posture is “NATO first”. We are trying to support our allies in NATO in deterring any threat that might come from possible adversaries; that is what this is about. It is not a stepping stone to anything else.

National Armaments Director

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Today’s debate takes place at a moment of acute global instability, with war still raging in Ukraine, mounting threats from hostile states and an unreliable security partner in the White House. The world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation. In that context, the Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in February to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. The Government’s subsequent commitment to a new NATO defence spending target of 5% is also the right decision. It reflects a recognition of the new threat environment that we find ourselves in and of what is necessary to support Britain’s long-term defence.

It remains the case, however, that the Government are still playing catch up on questions of the nation’s security. The last Conservative Government cut the Army by 10,000 troops, even as tanks rolled across continental Europe. That decision was staggeringly short-sighted and irresponsible. Despite that, this Government have dragged their feet on rebuilding the strength and size of our Army and have said that there will be no expansion to Army numbers beyond 73,000 troops until the next Parliament. In the context of the threats we face, that timeline can only be summarised as a day late and a pound short. The British Army remains one of the strongest deterrents we have—if the Government can commit to supporting its regeneration fully. While I welcome this Government’s shift in tone compared with the Conservatives, I urge Ministers again to commit to a much more rapid reversal of those troop cuts.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The strategic defence review mentions that there will be an increase in the size of the Army at some point if funds allow. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, now that we will be spending 3.5% of GDP on defence, we can accelerate that shift and grow the size of the Army now to provide that deterrent effect?

[Helen Maguire]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would absolutely help our deterrence if we could increase troop numbers. The Liberal Democrats are calling for new bonus schemes to recruit and re-enlist 3,000 personnel, allowing the Government to reach their target of 73,000 trained troops as soon as possible, meaning that they can grow Army numbers further and faster beyond that in this Parliament. I encourage the Minister to consider those proposals.

Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for setting the scene. I was here for his first debate in Westminster Hall; I am now here for his second, and I am sure I will be here for many more to come.

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. Obviously, the title of the debate is armed forces recruitment in the north-east, but I want to speak about Armed Forces Day, as other hon. Members have, which we had last Saturday in Newtownards. I will also speak about the tradition of service in uniform in my family, including among my uncles, who fought in the second world war, and my cousins. When I was an eight-year-old boy—which, by the way, was not yesterday; I am long past that—I wanted to be a Royal Marine commando.

I never made it to a Royal Marine commando, though not because I did not try—go for the highest!—but the Minister for Veterans, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), did get that job. I always liked the look of him; he achieved that goal and we all have great fondness for him. I think of him climbing Mount Everest—wow, if you are not impressed by that, you should be.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

As we all know, the tagline for the Royal Marine commandos was “99.9% need not apply”. When it comes to parliamentary spoken contributions, the hon. Member is in top 0.1%, so he has achieved that goal.

[Jim Shannon]

That comment is on the record.

I always wanted to be in the Army and I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment as an 18-year-old. There were different rules back in the ’70s—everyone will now be able to judge my age—and I served for three years as a part-time soldier in that regiment. It was clear that that was an anti-terrorism role; those were incredibly difficult times for all of us in Northern Ireland.

I later left the Ulster Defence Regiment and joined the Royal Artillery as a Territorial Army soldier, where I served for 11.5 years. Altogether, I served for 14.5 years, and they were some of the most exciting times of my life. I used to make a silly joke: people would ask me what I was in, and I would say, “The SAS”. Of course, their ears would perk up and they would say, “The SAS?” I would reply, “Yes, Saturdays and Sundays.” Those were the days when we did our training and our competitions, and made ourselves try to be soldiers in whatever role we were playing.

Last Saturday, as hon. Members have already said, we hosted Armed Forces Day for Northern Ireland in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford. What a day that was: the sun was shining and the children were laughing, but most importantly the armed forces were honoured, with an estimated 60,000 people coming to Ards to enjoy the host of food stalls and armed forces stalls, as well as all the different charities and regiments that were able to be there. There was also the chance to see—as we all wanted to when we were small, and not because we are from Northern Ireland—the guns, the helicopters and the other things up close, as well as the dancing and the fun on the fields. Those things were all part of last Saturday.

The Falcons started off the aerial events, and I could hear the gasps and the comments from the watching public. Those guys were coming out of the sky, and people were pointing at them, but my eyesight is not what it was and I am afraid I could not even see them until they were almost there. We saw what they did, and how precise they were in landing exactly where they needed to on the airfield—if it were me, I would probably be in Strangford lough somewhere. We learned about the regiment and wondered at their skill. The drumhead ceremony was respectful, and the sounds of the crowd singing the national anthem will stay with me for a long time.

Of course, the highlight of the day for many were the incomparable Red Arrows, whose skill and showmanship reminded us all of the strength of the armed forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—undoubtedly the best in the world. The beating of the retreat was the perfect end to the day, and I thank the Royal Irish Regiment bands for their world-class performances.

I am sure that the event has given many young people the desire and opportunity to see how they can join the best in the world, as hon. Members have referred to, in particular the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. We need to encourage more local authorities to highlight those opportunities in their area, including in the north-east and across the whole United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland has historically given a higher proportion of service than any other country in the UK, and that remains the case. In the latest recruitment year, Northern Ireland has again contributed a large number of individuals to the UK armed forces. That figure represents recruitment to the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Airforce and the British Army. Overall, UK armed forces saw a 19% increase in recruitment in the 12 months to 31 March 2025, with the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines experiencing the largest percentage increase. That is great news, but it is obvious that more needs to be done, which is why we are having this debate.

I apologise for not welcoming the Minister to his place. He is a good friend of the armed forces—I do not say that to give him a big head; I mean it. Whenever he faces issues that refer to Northern Ireland, he asks all the Northern Ireland MPs for their input. That shows his interest, and that he wants to hear what our constituents are telling us and feed that into the process. I very much look forward to his response; I do not think anybody in the Chamber will be disappointed by it.

There are things we should do. First, we could do more with the cadets. I understand there are issues for the cadets, and I am anxious about those; the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) referred to the cadets in her constituency. I visited Ballykinler three months ago and met the cadets from County Down who had their weekend camp there, and I was greatly impressed.

I understand that the role of the cadets is not to make people want to join the forces—and I understand the reason for that; they are at a young age—but I am keen to get the Minister’s thoughts on how we can do better. When I talk to the officers and those who train the cadets, I say, “You’ve got a potential recruitment pool here. Can we do more?” I know that some of those cadets will go on to join the Army, particularly the Royal Irish Regiment or the RAF, but we could do more. I leave that question for the Minister.

Secondly, on Saturday, I also spoke to some people who hold ranks in my old regiment, the Royal Artillery, including the commanding officer. I asked him how recruitment was going with the TA, and he told me, “Jim, it’s not as good as it used to be.” I said, “Is it not? I thought we were recruiting well in Northern Ireland.” He said, “Yes, we’re recruiting above the quota in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, but here are some ideas.” I said, “Tell me what your ideas are.” He said, “We need to promote more of the skills that can be learned in the forces.” I understand that the Government, and the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army, enable people to do skills courses that give them better opportunities for recruitment.

Thirdly, the commanding officer also said, “Employers need to be more flexible.” I said, “What do you mean by that?” He said, “Maybe with getting time off, for instance, at the weekend.” Is there a job to be done with employers to ensure that we do something better? Those are three positive ideas for the Minister—that is always how I do things—and if we can do them, I think we will encourage people.

There is no doubt that the 60,000 people who were at the Armed Forces Day in Newtownards last Saturday felt pride in the country, pride in the flag and pride in the uniform. Pride in the flag and uniform transcends both sides of the community, some of whom fought tooth and nail over 30 years of a terrorist campaign. Both sides of the community serve in uniform. For instance, the cadets in Northern Ireland come from both sides of the community, and percentage-wise it is equal. That tells me that the forces of today have appeal right across both the spectrum of political opinion, if that is what it is, and across the communities of Northern Ireland. There are good things happening, but there is much to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.

At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.

That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that

“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.

He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend’s question gives me an opportunity to thank the Veterans Minister and celebrate his work in completing Operation Mountain Goat, the speed climb of Everest. I commend him and all those who did so on their aspiration to raise £1 million for veterans’ charities—that is something I think we can get behind on a cross-party basis.

It is absolutely essential that we continue to support our national security. The more that we can do so on a cross-party basis, the more the power of our deterrence is something we can shout loudly and proudly about, especially when it relates to directing increased defence spending towards UK companies, creating jobs nationwide and using defence as the engine for growth that it truly is.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I am in favour of this new method of delivery, which gives us more options and probably makes it less likely in the long run that nuclear weapons will be used. However, cost is key, and with 20% of the defence budget already taken up by the defence nuclear enterprise, it is clear that our conventional capabilities are suffering. Can the Minister tell us whether the increased cost of these new warheads will come out of the Ministry of Defence’s budget, or out of a special Treasury reserve, as has sometimes been the case previously?

[Luke Pollard]

The increase in defence spending that we have secured, which the Prime Minister announced in February, provides us with the opportunity not to just renew our conventional capabilities, but look at how we can further support our nuclear deterrent and build our cyber-capabilities. Taken together, that is how we will build that collective responsibility. I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an incorrect answer, so I will write to him about the point that he raised.

Strategic Defence Review

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. The approach at the heart of this strategic defence review and at the heart of this Government’s commitment to our collective deterrence and defence in the Euro-Atlantic is NATO first, but it is not NATO only. Alliances and partnerships such as the global combat air programme and AUKUS, and partnerships we have with other nations, remain important.

On innovation and the British base, my hon. Friend will recognise that, as part of warfighting readiness, we require an industrial readiness. That industrial readiness—that industrial deterrence that is part of preventing our adversaries from considering attacks against us—means that our companies must be able to innovate and scale up production if we are faced with conflicts in the future. That will be a touchstone for the way we will take many decisions as we invest in the future.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This defence review gives us a long shopping list of technological advances—the cyber command, digital backbone, drones, AI—and that is right and proper, but the British military is tiny. Recently, the Select Committee heard that if we had to fight tonight, we could scratch together five ships and 30 planes. The person who told us that was the former head of the MOD’s own strategic net assessment office. Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that to fight and win wars, we need to have a mass of force—a large force—with tech that is good enough, rather than a small, perfectly formed, high-tech force? Is that lesson being heeded in the review?

[John Healey]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we do not fight alone and we do not plan to fight alone. We are a leading member of NATO, a 32-strong alliance that has never been bigger and has never been stronger. As we approach the NATO summit later this month, there will be a discussion about the capabilities that each nation contributes and develops in the years ahead, so that we can strengthen that collective deterrence, avoid the wars that we do not want to fight, and strengthen our collective and our UK defence.

Royal British Legion

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire]

Yes. It is absolutely vital, and I will come on to that point in a moment.

As I was saying, the RBL does a lot, from sharing a moment of reflection while commemorating the 80th anniversary of VE Day on 8 May this year by lighting the beacon on Epsom Downs to organising the Remembrance Sunday parade each year.

My local Epsom and Ewell branch raised over £79,000 during the 2024 poppy appeal, the highest amount raised by any Surrey branch and the most the Epsom and Ewell branch has ever raised. I extend my thanks and gratitude to the organiser, Amy Johnson, and to all the amazing volunteers who stood for hours collecting donations—I was proud to be a volunteer myself. However, there is a national shortage of volunteers like Amy, so I encourage everyone to donate their time.

My local branch runs a monthly veterans community hub, offering ex-servicemen and women a place for community and companionship. This initiative has been a lifeline for over 30 veterans, many of whom had felt isolated before attending. I have been delighted to meet so many wonderful individuals and to hear stories about their time in the armed forces. One woman who stands out is Mildred, who is 101 and was in the Special Operations Executive in Italy, running messages to and from the resistance on her bike—she spent her 21st birthday in a cave with other resistance fighters. I was honoured to celebrate her 100th birthday with her at the veterans hub.

The group, which is led by the incredible Barb Warwick and so many volunteers, has also taken veterans on trips, including a visit to the D-Day Story Museum in Portsmouth, and it gets them to participate in activities such as archery and model-making. The group is extremely grateful to 135 Geographic Squadron Royal Engineers and Major Quintin Locke for allowing it to use the Army Reserve centre free of charge.

It is inspiring to see communities come together to support the RBL’s work, but we must do more to ensure that veterans receive a fair deal. Branches such as Epsom and Ewell, which have worked closely with borough councils, are anxious about the transition to unitary local government. We must ensure that RBL branches continue to have opportunities to work with devolved Governments under the new system.

Branches also struggle with membership, despite the presence of many veterans, as many veterans are unaware of the support available to them. GPs are now pledged to support veterans in any way they can as part of the military covenant, and it is vital that they are equipped with the resources to connect veterans to the RBL and other resources.

Additionally, the RBL is keen to break the misconception that it primarily serves veterans from world war one and world war two. It actively supports veterans from conflicts such as those in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I noted when I spent time with the RBL in Tunbridge Wells that there has been an age shift, and that it is the old and the bold who are manning the barricades, as I am sure that many of us have seen that in our local branches. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister and the Government to connect service leavers—people of our generation, as my hon. Friend and I served at the same time—and the RBL in the areas where they are going to live?

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?