Mike Martin
MP for Tunbridge Wells · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and I want to pick up his last theme, which was the defence of our country. Specifically, I want to talk about our readiness to fight a war.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In today’s Red Book we see a figure of £72.8 billion, so there is a gap of £1 billion. It is the same for 2028-29. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard me, but perhaps the Chancellor would like to clarify his statement, because it does not seem that he is fully funding the DIP, according to the figures that were laid…”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But then why do we have a defence investment plan in which two thirds of the capital expenditure is after 2030, and that will deliver projects well into the 2030s? If we really need to be ready for war by 2030, we need to focus on readiness.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This cut in resource expenditure, in day-to-day expenditure in the MOD, is having a real effect on our ability to be ready for war now, and that has a direct effect on our ability to deter Russia by 2030, which is exactly what the Government tell us we need to be doing.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Day-to-day expenditure in the MOD means spare parts, maintenance, munitions, training and operations. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, and we are currently running an inquiry into the state of the British military. What we are hearing is sobering stuff.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the moment, we have exquisitely expensive planes that are sitting out in the open on the airbases. Do these people watch the news? Do they see what the Ukrainians are doing to Russian airframes? For relatively small amounts of money, we could get ready for the war that the Government say we face.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
392 held · 389 searchable for Mike Martin. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I think I heard the Minister say a few moments ago that he hoped the outcome of the Israeli election would be a policy more amenable to British Government policy. May I just clarify that he, as a Minister of the Crown, is suggesting that the British Government would like Netanyahu to lose that election?”
House of Commons1 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a tale of two DIPs. The first DIP is covered by the period in the current spending review, up to about 2030, and the second DIP is the bit beyond that, from 2030 to 2035. The first has detailed spending commitments, and the latter has quite vague spending commitments. The former has small investments and the latter has big investments. I will give two examples: air has £28 billion versus £70 billion, and land has £19 billion versus £36 billion. On behalf of the Government, whoever might be in it by that point, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Treasury has guaranteed that those figures will be in the next spending review—that is, that the Defence section of the next spending review has already been written?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My question is in a similar vein to that asked by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). I was really concerned to hear of the cuts at the BBC; “The World Tonight” is going, and “Today” is being cut back. This follows on the heels of cuts at “Newsnight”. It seems that the justification for these cuts is that programmes are being reoriented towards young people, which is obviously a good thing in and of itself. However, when I was 18, I did not listen to any of those programmes; now that I am in my 40s, I listen to them all. Do these cuts not undermine the BBC’s mission to educate and inform, and in this age of disinformation, is it not vital that we keep those programmes?”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A strategy is not a plan. A strategy is about ways, ends and means. The ways are the plan. The means are the resources. The ends are where one is going to.”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without looking at that financialisation and solving those problems, particularly around debt, it will be difficult to drive the investment required in companies such as South East Water. I want to touch very briefly on Ofwat, which recently fined South East Water £22 million. I think I have about a minute left.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats had been calling for a long time for the abolition of Ofwat and the creation of a regulator that brings together all these myriad regulators and strengthens their power, so we are very glad. However, I gently say to the Minister that there is an issue around the debt that the water companies hold. The sector is worth about £100 billion in asset value, and it borrowed £70 billion against that. A sector that has a 70% debt-to-equity ratio is not a sector that is able to deliver proper investment, and I have spoken about the high interest rates. We are in this mess because of financial engineering by the likes of Macquarie and other investors.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“South East Water’s debt interest runs at £3,000 an hour, so while my constituents did not have water in December, South East Water’s shareholders made £1.8 million in interest from the company. The result is that we have under-invested infrastructure that fails and causes outages, leading to the terrible problems we have been speaking about. I echo what everyone has said about the Minister being extremely forward-leaning and helpful in these crises. She suffered a personal tragedy during one of the outages in Tunbridge Wells, and before she went off on compassionate leave, she reached out to my office to make sure I had everything I needed from the Department. That speaks to her approach to the job, as well as her professionalism. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 fixes some of the regulation issues.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Tunbridge Wells, we need to look at investment going into Pembury water treatment works specifically, as well as at the interconnections between all of our constituencies. South East Water was cobbled together from 20 other companies over 50 years, and the interconnections have not been built between those separate water networks. There is another point about shareholders and accountability. South East Water is owned by three major shareholders: the NatWest Group pension fund, Desjardins and Utilities Trust of Australia. One way they make a return on their capital is by charging extortionate interest rates on loans to the company—in the order of 10%. Putting reputational risk aside, it is effectively a risk-free investment because, in reality, the Government back the water network.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope soon to bring the good news to colleagues that South East Water will increase the compensation, but local businesses lost the critical period before Christmas, which is when hospitality businesses make all of their money for the rest of the year. As has been mentioned, the chair and the CEO have gone. I am glad that we all united around the calls, originating during the December outage, for the CEO to step down—no change could happen at South East Water without the CEO, in particular, going. I have met the new chair, and I am impressed. There are some small seeds and shoots that we can look at, because although the chair and the CEO leaving is necessary, it is not sufficient.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My office became a kind of crisis cell where people were able to feed requests to us to pass on to South East Water. It would be funny if it was not so serious, but when Dave Hinton was brought in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January, as he was speaking the water went off again in Tunbridge Wells for a further week. Local businesses in Tunbridge Wells lost millions over both of those outages, and the sum offered by South East Water was paltry. Working with the business improvement district and local businesses, we presented evidence to South East Water and secured a commitment that it would at least look at the size of the compensation it offered.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and an honour to follow so many fellow Kent MPs and constituency neighbours. In December last year, 24,000 properties in Tunbridge Wells were completely without water for a week. The following week, they had a boil notice, so they were without drinking water for two weeks. The stories that my constituents shared are harrowing. Someone who was incontinent with colon cancer was left to clean with wet wipes. Another lady who had a miscarriage was unable to clean herself, compounding the trauma. People fainted outside kidney dialysis centres and had to have CPR. Schools shut, GP surgeries received no bottled water deliveries and, as we have all spoken about, our constituents who are supposedly on the priority register did not receive any supplies.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would argue that, rather than fining the company after the event, we should be forcing it to invest equivalent or larger amounts in infrastructure. I presented a resilience plan drawn up with water experts for Pembury water treatment works. That fine should be commuted. It just goes to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, but that money should be invested in the water network. I will conclude by looking ahead. The Water (Special Measures) Act is necessary but not sufficient—a bit like getting rid of the chair and CEO. Without tackling the debt burden and the financial structures of many of these firms, in which bonuses are still paid and part of the corporate structure is in the Cayman Islands or whatever, we will not get to the root of the problems in the water sector.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this urgent question, and I thank the Security Minister for his characteristically serious and thoughtful responses. It strikes me that there are three lines of investigation: first, into the abhorrent act on Monday night, and we have a suspect; secondly, into the disorder that we saw last night, and I heard the Minister say that three people have been arrested as suspects; and thirdly, into those who seek to incite violence. Can the Minister confirm that there is that third strand of active investigation—that we are seeking to find the people who incited the violence last week and last night, and who continue to do so?”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the hon. Lady, as someone who has been through the vetting process repeatedly in the past. Those who attend a vetting interview are told, “The information that you are going to give me is between you and me”—between the subject of the interview and the vetting officer. Of course the ISC is hermetically sealed, but if the person going through the process knows that the information will be given to anyone other than the vetting officer, it makes that person think, “Should I be giving this information?” and that compromises the entire vetting system.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister proudly touts jobs, hiring bonuses, youth guarantees, Government-funded work experience and job placements, but these are all treating the symptoms of the problem. Frankly, it is all a bit old Labour. The problems are structural ones in the economy to do with investment, taxation and regulation. Is there anyone on the Government Benches who understands how an economy works?”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think it is clear from these exchanges that this is an issue that divides the House, and it also divides the country. There are many different opinions. Will the Minister commit herself to putting the statutory instrument to a vote?”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Picking up the theme of mishandled communications, and the anxiety that they caused many of our constituents, the Financial Times is still reporting an easing of sanctions, as is the BBC. Those are not outlets known for hyperbole. Perhaps the Government could issue a correction to major media outlets.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot allow that situation to become a reality. The picture I have painted is one of systematic underfunding across all domains, and unless we rapidly rearm, we will be unable to deter. If we want to deter and to lead in the security of the Euro-Atlantic area, we probably need an Army of about 100,000, with reserves of 50,000, a fleet of 50 ships and about 250 combat aircraft, with crewed systems surrounded by autonomous systems and one-way effectors. That is the capability we must be talking about if we want to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a gaping hole in our deterrence, and every day it goes unaddressed, the risks to our forces already deployed and our nation at home grow. Our artillery systems have halved in number since 1997. Our precision deep-fire capability has been cut by a third. We have just 14 155 mm artillery systems, although I note that the Government have recently announced a new order. Poland donated 100 systems to Ukraine and rebuilt its own inventory at the same time. It donated and replaced; we just donated, which is why we have 14 artillery systems left. Meanwhile, warfare has changed, and the UK has not adapted. During a recent NATO training exercise, a British brigade was effectively wiped out by four Ukrainian drone operators. That is not an indictment of our soldiers, but a reflection of modern warfare.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It pains me to say it, but our Navy does not project strength, and Putin will continue to mount increasingly flagrant violations of our territorial waters until our Navy is strong enough to make him think twice. Will it take the severing of a data cable to cause us to act? Moving from the sea to the land, the Ministry of Defence was unable to confirm to the Defence Committee whether it is able to deploy a battlegroup—1,000 soldiers—to the continent of Europe. That comes back to my point about projecting strength. Putin knows that if he were to test article 5, the 900 British soldiers in Estonia would be at extreme risk. We have no ability to deploy reinforcements, and the King’s Speech does not do anything to change that.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On paper, France and the United Kingdom have comparable fleets, but in practice France achieves about 80% availability for its escort vessels, while we achieve only 50%. Through better maintenance, France achieves a better outcome. Capability on paper is worthless if it cannot deploy. It gets worse. We started this year with seven frigates. HMS Richmond will be decommissioned this year, and HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service this month. That leaves us with five frigates. Furthermore, three build slots in Glasgow intended for new frigates have been ceded to Norway, because of the lack of guaranteed investment due to delays in the defence investment plan. That is a real-world example of Government inertia affecting our defence. Putin exploits weakness, and he shies away from strength.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must rapidly rearm to narrow this gap; it is the only way that we can deter conflict. Despite that, the King’s Speech contains no programme of rearmament. The Government speak the language of urgency yet refuse even to introduce the necessary policy and legislation. As has been mentioned by Members from all parts of the House, we have been waiting for the defence investment plan since last autumn, and we were promised a defence readiness Bill in this King’s Speech, but where is it? As an island nation, our Navy is of the utmost importance, but it is also on its knees. While HMS Dragon took a week to deploy to the Mediterranean, the French sent an entire carrier group—an aircraft carrier, eight frigates and a submarine. How did they do that?”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not normally introduce me like that, so thank you very much. It is an honour to share a constituency border with you and to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who made a heartfelt and powerful speech. Wars are raging in Europe and in the middle east, and there are extreme tensions in the far east. Moreover, these regional conflicts are starting to knit together: Russia and China supported Iran in the middle east, and North Korea supported Russia in Ukraine. This knitting together of regional conflicts is what we saw in the 1930s in the foothills of the second world war, so there is an argument that we are now in the foothills of another global war. It is undoubtedly true that the threats we face are increasing, yet at the same time, day by day, UK military capability is decreasing.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and as well as increasing the scope of who can be called up, it creates a consolidation of different types of reserves and allows zig-zag pathways for specialists who can come in and out of the reserves, so it is absolutely a step in the right direction. One thing that is missing at the moment might create the political space for an increase in defence spending. I was slightly waylaid by the right hon. Member who intervened, but I should have said that to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic area, we are talking about a 50% increase in defence expenditure, not £1 billion here or £2 billion there. A 50% increase in defence is the scale we are talking about.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recently went to a school in my constituency to talk to sixth-formers, and I have asked this question in several schools since, but they all assume we have a fleet of about 50 or 100 ships. When I tell them that we have 14 frigates and destroyers—surface combatants—they are shocked. The general public do not know the state of the British military, which is entirely incommensurate with the threat we face. In conclusion, because time is very short, our military is a paper tiger. Sooner or later, we are going to be found out, and when we are found out and the battlegroup in Estonia is overrun or an aircraft carrier is sunk, Suez will pale into insignificance. This King’s Speech falls far short of what is required.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not, if that is okay, because we are short on time. To create the political space for some of these trade-offs, because that is a huge amount of money—£30 billion extra every single year—we need to have the national conversation on defence that was announced in the strategic defence review, but has been notable by its absence. That is why I, together with the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Richards in the other place, have formed the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We hope to raise public awareness not just of the threats, because I think the public understand the threats we face, but of the lack of capability, and the diminishing capability, in the UK military.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is not the biggest problem with first past the post that often people are voting against rather than for someone? That poisons our democracy, because everyone ends up with someone who they do not want.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(8) Each subsequent report must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the publication of the last report under this section.” This amendment would require the Government to publish an annual report on the impact of provisions related to transfers between regular and reserve forces on retention in the armed forces.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 31, page 51, line 2, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each financial year, publish a report assessing the impact of the provisions under subsections (3) and (4) on the retention of personnel within His Majesty’s forces. (6) The report under subsection (5) must include data on the number of personnel who have transferred between the regular and reserve forces, broken down by service and rank. (7) The first such report must be laid before each House of Parliament within a period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I conclude by saying that our amendment does not seek to amend the function of the clause, which we are in favour of, but it seeks to mandate the MOD to provide a report to Parliament, so that Parliament can exercise proper oversight and scrutiny.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would not change the function of the clause, but just require the Government to enable Parliament to monitor the situation accurately. As we know, recruitment and retention is a big problem for the armed forces. Without such a reporting requirement, the provisions could be enacted—again, we are in favour of that—but never meaningfully evaluated. As we heard in evidence, there are so many different categories of reserve forces and many different types of engagement. They have grown piecemeal over time, and one reason for that is that there is no effective oversight mechanism, looking at things in the round. Under this amendment, the reporting requirement would establish one element of an oversight mechanism.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, there is a question mark as to what effect such movement has on retention. In an ideal world, we would expect it to improve, as more flexibility should mean that people are more likely to stay in the regular forces or the reserve forces. But we do not know that; this is an untried experiment, so the amendment would mandate the Ministry of Defence to provide a report to Parliament on the effect of the implementation of this clause—of this zig-zag career pathway—on retention. Specifically, clause 31 as it stands amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to make it easier for personnel to move in both directions. It also amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to enable that to happen. Amendment 7 would simply add an annual reporting and accountability mechanism on top of those transfer provisions.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and I thank you for the invitation to remove our jackets. Amendment 7 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. I will just briefly introduce it to the Committee. The idea of a zig-zag career is incredibly important. Unlike previously, when the qualification needed to join the armed forces was the ability to run around a muddy field with a heavy backpack, we now live in an age in which we recognise that we need a much greater range of skills in the armed forces, and the ability to move from reserve to regular and back to reserve is incredibly important, so we welcome that the Government are introducing that. When I served, a number of people regularly moved between the regulars and the reserves—in fact, I did it myself.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Call out for permanent service Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Talking about both is necessary for the national conversation that was highlighted in the strategic defence review but has not happened. Will he join us in talking about the threat, and also give an honest depiction of the state of the UK military so that our public can be informed and can tell us what they would like us to do?”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following the comments by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), may I make a plea that we put this political blame game to one side? The fleet halved under the previous Labour Government. We all have our fingerprints on the current state of the UK military. It is unedifying for us, for this House and for the state that we are in as a nation. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, which I recently set up with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is longer in his place, as well as with Field Marshal Lord David Richards in the other place. Our aim is to highlight not only the scale of the threat that we face but the parlous current state of the British military. Does the Minister share that aim with us?”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can help out a little with the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The post was not filled. The Government were having some difficulty in filling the post, and—”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This crisis has laid bare the parlous state of the British military. The three main parties of government should put aside the blame game and accept that we have all played our part in getting the British military into the state that it is in now. For over a year, the Liberal Democrats have been asking for cross-party talks on how to get to the 3% spending target, and I am glad that the Conservatives have now joined us. We have spoken about defence bonds, and I am sure that the Conservatives and the Government have ideas. This could be the Prime Minister’s legacy. Can we get together in the national interest and talk about how to increase defence spending?”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This process is, among other things, about protecting British access to the communications spectrum. That is why the previous Government started it, and why the current Government are carrying it on. If we are not able to pass the treaty and ensure that access, what is plan B?”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope to give the Minister a focused question. He has rightly laid out the importance of the data cables to the UK as an island, and also highlighted Russia’s continued activity over many decades. The frigates that we have in the Royal Navy are really the centrepiece of the anti-submarine war, so my short, focused question is: how many frigates could we put to sea tomorrow?”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, the problem with how it was laid out in the Act is that no targets or timelines were set, so although the MOD reports to Parliament, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on the attainment of that standard for service personnel. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to put that accountability in place and ensure that the MOD has to achieve the standard. When it reports to Parliament, the amendments would ensure there is a mechanism by which Parliament can hold the MOD accountable for attaining the standard for service personnel.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At a time when we have a retention crisis, it seems that we should be focusing on that. I know the Government are focusing on it, and in tabling this amendment we are trying to help them to fix the problem. Of the 78% of service personnel who live in service accommodation, only half—51%—remain satisfied with the state of their housing. So there are problems, although improvements have been made. Under the Renters’ Rights Act, which was amended to include the decent homes standard, the MOD was mandated to report to Parliament on the state of service housing. The idea was that it would gradually move defence housing stock up to the decent homes standard.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government originally voted against it on Report, but then they made the amendment to the legislation. I am not presenting that to the Committee in a partisan way; I merely want to say that we have already had this discussion, and the Government have accepted that it is the appropriate standard for civilian renters. Service personnel are also renting—they pay money for their accommodation, so they are renting—so the standard should be reflected in their housing. What do service personnel say about their accommodation? I accept that it has improved, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, but there are still problems. Let me give the Committee a few statistics. One in five personnel plans to leave the armed forces, and 25% of those cited the standard of accommodation as a reason for leaving.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also says that a property should have modern “facilities and services” and provide a reasonable degree of “thermal comfort”, so we would probably expect double glazing, rather than the single glazing that I had, although it was 20 years ago. A more recent document published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January sets out the new decent homes standard. Amendment 3 seeks to enforce the original 2006 standard, because the document published in January is a White Paper and is not yet Government policy. The new decent homes standard seeks to reflect things like modern energy efficiency standards, as we would expect. This does not seem much to ask, and the Lib Dems pushed for it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At that time, I was single, but of course it is not just those who serve who expect to live in decent homes; their families expect to, as well. In a minute, I will refer to the continuous attitude surveys and what service personnel feel about their service accommodation. However, it is often the pressure on their family—their wife or husband, and the children—that make service personnel think, “I can deal with this, but I do not want my family to have to deal with it.” What is the decent homes standard? As originally defined, it refers to a home being in “a reasonable state of repair”. Obviously, if that standard were applied, it would immediately outlaw things like damp.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, that takes us to the whole point of the armed forces covenant, which is to make sure that service personnel are not prejudiced in any way by their service. If the decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it follows, if we are to apply the covenant as intended, that service personnel should also be afforded the same standard. What is the decent homes standard? Anyone who has served, as I have, has at some point in time been housed in accommodation that is just beyond belief. I spent some time in accommodation that was actually condemned, which meant that no money was being spent on it because it was going to be demolished at some unspecified point in the future, but I lived in it for the entire time I was there.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have tabled. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3, so I will speak about them together. What we are talking about here is a sensible proposal. Indeed, the Government and the Lib Dems have already had many discussions on this proposal, and the Government have already accepted it in a related area of law. I therefore hope the Minister will treat it as a tidying-up exercise on which we can all agree. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to enshrine the decent homes standard as the minimum standard for the Defence Housing Service. The decent homes standard has been in law for about two decades, and the Government recently incorporated it into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What we are seeking to do here is a tidying-up exercise to support the Government in their aim to set service personnel and civilians on an equal level and make sure that service personnel and particularly their families are not prejudiced as a result of their service. If a decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it is good enough for service renters.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗