Mike Martin
MP for Tunbridge Wells · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I am curious about this mantra that there have not been any blackouts. Over the past six months, businesses in the St John’s area of Tunbridge Wells have complained of blackouts. I surveyed my constituents who live in the area, and 60% said that they had experienced some blackouts—not long-term ones, but intermittent blackouts.”
“Might the Minister comment briefly on the Government’s approach to water? In the recent heatwaves, South East Water reported that water usage went up by 15% because people were taking extra showers and so on. She will know that South East Water has had huge problems with resilience in the network; that pushed it right to the brink.”
“We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon.”
“We actually have examples of water companies lying. We had South East Water coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January and giving false evidence—so much so that the Chair considered bringing it back for being in contempt of Parliament.”
“There are a number of options on the table for Kent, and no matter which one the Minister chooses, we will need to do some tidying up of ward and division boundaries, because there are vast disparities between the number of electors and some of the current county council boundaries.”
“Thirdly, we need to trust the public and tell them not just about the threat that we face but about the current state of our armed forces and where they need to get to. Question put and agreed to .”
The complete record
Every one of 372 lines we hold for Mike Martin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Moral injury, which is actually a term that came out of the conflict in Afghanistan, happens where what you hear about the conflict is very different from what you experience on the ground, and the decisions that you have to make are very discordant. It is a bit separate from the “classic” trauma that we might understand as PTSD, but all these things come to the same. Personally, I wrote books, articles and pamphlets, which was my way of achieving catharsis and balance. I donated the proceeds of my first book to Combat Stress, a charity that supports the mental health of veterans and servicepeople.”
“I spent a couple of years in southern Afghanistan, including some periods in combat. I was lucky enough not to experience extreme trauma. Naturally, you do see some things in combat, but that was not my problem when I came back from Afghanistan. What I experienced was a deep sense of frustration and anger at what was effectively a failed mission. I know that some people in this room, including the Minister, served in Afghanistan. We were sent there to do the sharp end of Government policy. We do so willingly, of course—that is what we sign up for—but that policy was ill thought out and often put servicepeople in very difficult positions in which they had to make judgments in extremely grey areas. If the strategy had been slightly more clearly thought out, perhaps some of us who were there might not have experienced that moral injury.”
“Those challenges often start in service, whether they arise through the pressures of service, the vagaries of service life or the trauma experienced in combat. Under the new clause, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State, would essentially have a remit to oversee the care offered to veterans across the nation. It is doubly important that we seek, as we did this morning, not just to regularise and establish parity of care for veterans across the entire country, but to understand that people with mental health problems often find it hard to reach out. It is easier to forget people with mental health problems, which is why the establishment of the position is particularly important. I will touch a little on my own experiences.”
“It is a pleasure, after lunch, to continue serving under your chairship, Mr Efford. [ Laughter. ] That was not meant to be funny, but I suppose the best way to be funny is to be unintentionally funny. I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which would legislate for the establishment of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. I will come to some statistics later, but I think everyone in this room understands that veterans’ mental health is poor. That does not apply to all veterans, of course—many veterans, including the Minister and many Members in this room, take great agency from their service, so I do not wish to paint veterans as victims—but there are veterans who suffer with mental health challenges.”
“They would report to Parliament and illustrate the problems in a way that would enable Parliament to adequately oversee the issue and make sure that our veterans are cared for.”
“The shadow Minister is exactly right. We have used a few metaphors today, including that of mental health as a journey. Another metaphor is that mental health is a garden that has to be tended. Each of us has a responsibility to introspect and check in with ourselves to see how we are doing, but the garden also needs to be tended by gardeners. The oversight position in new clause 2 is the chief gardener, if you like. We have all heard stories in our constituency casework about how mental health services are being pared to the bone. By offering reports to Parliament, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer would be able to illustrate some of the particular problems that veterans who suffer with mental health problems have.”
“Veterans often do not reach out when they have mental health issues, so there is a case for a sort-of chief gardener to help us make sure that we all tend the garden of our mental health.”
“Suicide rates are four times higher for veterans under the age of 25 than for the same group in the civilian population, and 52% of veterans have had a mental health problem compared with 45% in the general population. On the point about belonging that I mentioned, a third of veterans reported feeling loneliness compared with just 7% of the civilian population. Veterans experience PTSD at twice the rate of the civilian population. We do not have any figures for the moral injury concept that I spoke about because it is hard to define and band. The particular case of veterans and mental health is a well-recognised problem—we do not need to over-make the case; we understand it.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady. In the spirit of cross-party working, I say that we all support our veterans, and I think that the strides that the Government have made are fantastic. The previous Government had a Minister who was passionate about this issue, and he also made strides in this area. We are all trying to move in the same direction; it is not either/or. We have used the phrase “postcode lottery”. We all accept that veterans or people with mental health injuries do not reach out—often people who are depressed or anxious retreat inside themselves—so it is a good thing to have somebody who is able to survey veterans, understand their concerns and see how well linked they are to the fantastic mental health services that are being rolled out by the Government. Let me highlight a couple of statistics about veterans.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?”
“On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.”
“I know that the Minister will listen carefully to this question because he used to live in Tunbridge Wells. Elena is a Ukrainian woman who works in our local hospital. She has not been able to advance her career because her visa restrictions mean that she cannot study. I know that the Government do not want to give the Ukrainians permanent settlement—they have made that very clear—but will the Minister at least devise a pathway by which to give visa security to Ukrainians so that they can study and get mortgages and jobs? They are restricted in their ability to do those things.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for his constituents. Does he agree that this is a problem not just for the Isles of Scilly, but for the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles? We are an archipelago. Those who live on the outer islands suffer from this inequity; they are as British as us, but they do not enjoy the same connectivity.”
“TEK Military Seating in Tunbridge Wells designs and exports military seating. It risks losing a £400,000 order to a customer in the United Arab Emirates because it lacks the permissions in the export licence, and my understanding is that the Department for Business and Trade is waiting for an answer from the MOD. Will the Minister please investigate?”
“Contrary to what some less well-informed voices from the Conservative Benches have been saying, short of putting ground troops into Iran, there is no military solution that enables us to open the strait of Hormuz. The Iranians are effectively placing civilian shipping at risk with missiles, drones, subs and fast boats; it is very difficult to come up with a military solution to that problem, and Iran can therefore decide whether it wants to reopen the strait. Will the Minister tell the House whether we are getting together with our European allies to deliver a message to the Americans that they need to step down and step away from this to enable Iran to reopen the strait?”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this important debate. We have heard from both sides of the Chamber that the British tech sector spreads into all our constituencies, so it concerns us all. When the Government came to power, they said that their central mission was to provide growth. I posit that a key way to do that is by supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, because that is where growth comes from.”
“Those firms are left to go abroad, be taken over, or perhaps wither and see the market move on and eclipse them. That is the real danger.”
“First, Capital Web develops AI software to help businesses to improve productivity. That is on the application side of AI; we are never going to compete on the frontier model side of AI, but the UK can certainly compete on how we implement those frontier models to work cases. I will also give a bit more detail about Adzuna, a firm based in Tunbridge Wells that helps people to find jobs. The problem in the UK is one of scaling up. We often have support for businesses that are very small. We might have research and development tax credits or innovation grants, or we might help them to spin directly out of universities. However, what just does not happen in the UK is moving them on from the position where they have a concept and patent and are perhaps ready to scale rapidly.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive intervention, which speaks to exactly the issues that I will raise. The key example is DeepMind, which was the world-leading AI company. We, the Brits, failed to create the ecosystem, funding and risk-taking capital to enable it to scale fully. It was then bought by Google, and now the British Government contract with Google rather than with DeepMind. That is exactly my fear: even though we are the world’s third AI power, that could move away from us very quickly if we do not create the right ecosystem to support our tech firms. If this Government are serious about supporting growth, we need to look at small and medium-sized enterprises. It will not surprise hon. Members that I have some examples from my Tunbridge Wells constituency.”
“In that way the Government will open themselves up much more to small firms instead of just the big firms that are able to take two and a half years on a punt for a contract with the DWP. To sum up, there are a number of things that the Government could do around information sharing—I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for making that point—and access to capital, particularly encouraging pension funds to invest. They should also look at procurement and focusing that on small businesses, because small businesses are the ones that deliver growth. That is where we get growth in our economy—much more so than from big businesses. The Government have a huge set of levers to pull, so I implore the Minister, “Could we perhaps start pulling them?”. I look forward to his remarks.”
“That is the worst case, but then there is the Department for Work and Pensions. Andrew in my constituency founded Adzuna, which is effectively a super-duper job search thing that uses AI to match people’s profiles to the skills needed and so on. It took him two and a half years from approaching the DWP to signing a contract. Andrew started out with a laptop at his kitchen table, and businesses that size cannot wait two and a half years. Cash is king—and they will either have gone out of business or decided to go somewhere else by the time that contract is offered. Whether in defence, where people actually need to contract much more quickly because of the pace of technological change, or Government, who actually need an effective job search tool on their websites, these timescales need to be compressed.”
“Members will have seen me rail against, is 25% owned by NatWest pensions—our favourite cuddly UK bank—which makes its money by selling debt to South East Water at a rate of 10% interest. That is not pension fund investment that is driving growth in the UK. We must do better. We must think about how we can push and guide our pension funds, and all those millions that are under investment, to invest in growth sectors in the UK, rather than going abroad. Let me turn to reforming public procurement. At the worst end of the spectrum is probably the Ministry of Defence, where it takes six years from first contact to signing a contract. That is just to sign the contract, not to deliver the piece of military hardware and test it or have it in service. The stories out of MOD procurement would not be out of place in an episode of “The Thick of It”.”
“That is an excellent point. It is very much something that the Government can do, because they understand where capital can be found and how to create the legal and regulatory ecosystem that enables these companies to thrive. Let me touch briefly on access to capital—I am thinking of slightly larger amounts than those the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. Pension funds are a huge source of capital. In the UK, trillions are under management in our pension funds. This is something that Canada does very well. Canada’s pension funds operate almost like specialist investors, pumping billions of dollars into AI, infrastructure and software. To pick another example that is dear to my constituency, South East Water, which many hon.”
“We need a military that is able to lead in the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, and we must be able to do that without the US—that is clear from what is happening at the moment. Because of our history, the UK also needs to be able to retake the Falkland Islands as a sovereign endeavour, so without allies, but that is a big ask. If we want to do such things, I have a vision for what our military should look like, which is an Army of 100,000 soldiers, a fleet of 50 ships, and 250 combat aircraft.”
“Rob Johnson, who used to run the red teaming think-tank inside the MOD, recently told the Defence Committee that we could deploy just 2,000 troops, five ships and 30 aircraft if a crisis broke out. The Royal United Services Institute estimates that we would run out of ammunition within a week. That is not a credible defence posture for the United Kingdom. When I joined the Army 19 years ago, I was one of more than 100,000 regular soldiers. We now have just about 70,000 on the establishment, and we can deploy only 50,000 of those at any one time due to medical deployments and all the rest of it. Over the same period, our fleet has halved in size. I will say it again: that is not a credible defence posture for the United Kingdom. Change is desperately needed.”
“We currently have 900 troops in Estonia as part of Operation Cabrit, protecting NATO’s eastern front and deterring Russian aggression. Weakening or removing that deterrent would send exactly the wrong message to Putin. Where he sees strength, he retreats; where he sees weakness, he advances. The UK’s footprint in Estonia has already been stripped back to bare bones. We have fewer than 10 tanks operating there, and troop numbers are down by 650 since 2022. As far as I am concerned, we are breaking a promise to our Estonian allies. In Afghanistan, I fought alongside Estonian soldiers. We ate the same food, we went on the same patrols, and we got in the same firefights. They have been exceptional allies to us, not just in Afghanistan but elsewhere. We are not doing the same for them now. Our shortcomings go well beyond Estonia.”
“Other Members have articulated the threat we face, so I will not repeat those points. Suffice it to say, we are in jeopardy. Global threats are on the rise, but at the same time, UK capability is decreasing. The only way that we can close that gap is to re-arm. Rearming is the only credible way to deter war—that is the point of it. It is not just strategically sound; it is economically sensible. I would much rather we spend 3.5% of GDP on defence than 35%. That is not a hypothesis: 35% is what Ukraine currently spends on defence. Our military limitations are laid bare every day. Just last week, senior defence figures told The Times that the UK would be unable to send 5,000 troops to Ukraine without taking forces from Estonia or Cyprus.”
“The one thing we do not have is enough military capability to take that leadership position, and this estimate falls far short of what we need to spend—”
“If we want to do that now, it would cost 3.5% of GDP—it is basically a 50% increase on our current defence budget. When we talk about £2 billion here or £5 billion there, that is peanuts. If we want to lead in the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, we need an extra £30 billion for our defence budget now. The Government recognise the scale because they talk about 3.5%, but by 2035. If we are honest with ourselves, we think that is nonsense, because we need to be able to do it right now. I was in Munich recently and I spoke to a lot of our allies. They all tell us that they want the UK to lead in the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. Absent the US, we are the only country that can do that. We have the nuclear deterrent, the strategic culture, the willingness to use force, and the willingness to take casualties.”
“The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake. One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?”
“We have heard this argument a couple of times, and the right hon. Gentleman is making it well. He is making a grave accusation. Surely the easiest way to put this argument to bed would be for the Secretary of State to simply intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and state that auto-enrolment will be rolled out in all areas of the country before the next UK general election.”
“This is the key point: in an election, if someone has to vote against what they do not want, it poisons our whole democratic well, because voters feel that they end up with something they have not chosen. They have made a negative choice, rather than a positive choice.”
“On one hand, cryptocurrency has blockchain, so it is possible to look at the ledger to see where donations have come from. On the other hand, with multiple different cryptocurrencies, the ability to move funds in and out of cryptocurrencies in different jurisdictions on crypto exchanges that are held in jurisdictions with which we do not have good relationships, and the ability to use AI to split large donations into tiny donations, spread them out across hundreds of different crypto exchanges and cryptocurrencies, and then reform them into microdonations, this frontier is moving incredibly fast and we do not understand it. For that reason, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Secretary of State last week asking for a moratorium on cryptocurrencies, and I urge the Government to look into the issue—”
“The Minister can look at the evidence given to the Committee, but there are lots of behaviours that appear to be undemocratic, but after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, they are judged not to meet the threshold for breaking the law, either currently or if the Bill as drafted is enacted, so no further investigations are undertaken. There have been many instances when the National Crime Agency has been looking at something that is illegal and, in the scope of its activities, it has uncovered other activities that look “dodgy”, but it is unable to investigate further. That evidence was set out to the Committee, so the Minister can look at that. Secondly, there are the issues around cryptocurrency, as other hon. Members have already raised. This is a frontier that is moving incredibly fast.”
“In the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight a couple of areas where we need to go further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Chair of which, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), spoke earlier. The Committee has recently covered a couple of points that I implore the Minister to look into in greater depth. Our long-running inquiry on defending democracy looks at exactly the issues addressed in the Bill, and I would like to talk about two of them. First, representatives from the National Crime Agency came before the Committee and told us that the law as set out—both the current law and that mooted by the Government in their strategy—does not give the agency sufficient legal grounds to investigate suspicious donations.”
“It is great to speak in a debate that has been so well-tempered, and mostly very thoughtful. I start by welcoming the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Lib Dems have campaigned on that for many decades, so we are delighted that the Government have reached into our policy locker. I also welcome a lot of the work that will be done under this Bill around donor transparency—the idea of knowing our donor. If we are all being honest, many of us, looking at the rules around the donations that we all seek and accept, think that someone could, if they chose, drive a coach and horses through them. When we buy a house or a car, or some other expensive goods, we often have to prove where the money has come from, so it is about time that we had the same rules when it comes to political donations.”
“The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. While we want the war in Ukraine to end and, of course, for Britain to play a leading role in that, including, if appropriate, the provision of troops, does he not share my fear, when we zoom out and look at the geopolitical context, that putting the troops in Estonia in Ukraine stops us from guarding other areas on the eastern flank, and—to use military terminology—fixes most of our forces there when they might be needed elsewhere?”
“On this point about which Departments had which papers, I note that the Humble Address uses the words “including but not confined to”. Surely papers in the royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the scope of the Humble Address. Does my hon. Friend agree?”
“That is exactly what is happening in Tunbridge Wells. The secondary schools there have moved together to be smartphone-free, and now the primary schools are having that conversation with the parents.”
“I congratulate the Secretary of State on the White Paper. She clearly cares about this, which bodes well for the outcome. For too long, the cost of SEND support has fallen on local authorities, and that has had a knock-on effect on the other services they provide, such as libraries and roads. It now seems—if I am reading this right—that much SEND cost will come back to the DFE. What does that mean for local authority budgets? Will they be raided, and will that money be brought across to the DFE, or will those budgets be kept the same?”
“This has been a shamefully incompetent episode, and perhaps the most shameful part of it is that the Government have been forced to use taxpayers’ money to pay the claimant’s costs. Could the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much taxpayers’ money has been given to the claimant? Perhaps if he cannot do so, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) could let us know.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Health and Social Care questions on 22 July 2025—over six months ago—the Minister for Secondary Care agreed to meet me to discuss accelerating patient discharges from hospital. I wrote to her on 28 July to arrange that meeting and received no reply. I followed it up with a written parliamentary question on 9 September. I remain still with no reply. Could you please advise me on what further avenues are open to me to secure a reply, given the Minister’s commitment made in the House?”
“The Minister is very generous. I have just come from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, where we were looking at these issues in our inquiry on defending democracy. He has been in front of that inquiry. When will the new elections Bill be coming forward or—perhaps an easier way to ask the question—which will be the first election to take place under the new Bill, protected by the wider measures that he just set out?”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for an excellent report that speaks to some very real issues. We have an opportunity later this year when the defence readiness Bill comes before Parliament for consideration. Does he have any recommendations on what he would like to see in that Bill, and are he and his Committee talking with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that some of that gets into the Bill?”
“That ambition is fantastic, and I wonder whether we could be more ambitious on the drive-drink limit. Pilots cannot fly if they have any alcohol in their system. Why is it not the same for drivers?”
“The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?”
“As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, does the right hon. Lady know what the then Foreign Secretary—the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—knew at that time? Does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the House in this release of documents?”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way once again; she is being very generous. What is the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is not given to politicians when they make the decisions?”
“This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?”
“On my hon. Friend’s point about National Highways, the A21 runs through my constituency. It is the road between London and Hastings, and it is single track for most of the way, between halfway through my constituency and Hastings. That is a problem and a bad investment. It is a well-trafficked road. I wonder if it reflects my hon. Friend’s view of National Highways to say that there has been a staggering degree of incompetence around simple things such as cutting back the hedges so that the road remains safe on bends. That is not done to the standard or frequency required.”