Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin]

The original sin is divorcing the strategic defence review from the DIP—divorcing the vision from the resources. For the past year, the Department has been arguing first with itself about whether it can downgrade some of the things in the strategic defence review—there are a couple of instances where that has happened, which I will come on to—and then with the Treasury to get more money to fill the gap. Effectively, it wrote a vision that was far too grand for the money that was ever going to be available.

Let me turn from the money to the metal and have a look at some of the capabilities. I could give a very long speech on military analysis about which capabilities should be in or out, but I will not do that. I think it would test—[Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members would like me to do that; perhaps I will set up a Substack or something.

Let us look at the Royal Navy—the senior service. At the turn of this century—as someone born in 1982, I still feel weird saying that—the UK had 20 frigates. By the end of this year, we will have five. Pre-DIP, they were scheduled to go out of service in 2035. In a little-noticed line in the DIP, we are bringing forward that date. All five frigates, which have well exceeded their service date, are going in 2033. Their replacements, the Type 26s and the Type 23s, will come into service—you guessed it—in 2030-35. We therefore have old ships retiring on a fixed schedule and new ships coming in on an unfunded one. My back-of-a-fag-packet maths—probably the same quality of analysis goes into the MOD under this Government—shows that we will have three frigates in 2030, the year, according to our intelligence assessments, of maximum Russian threat against NATO. We need a frigate to protect our cables, another to get the carrier group out to sea, and another for our deterrent. According to the rule of three—for every three ships, we have only one at sea at any one time—that is nine frigates. If anything kicks off in the middle east or anywhere else, there is no contingency plan. We can see straightaway that there is a huge gap—the frigate gap, as many call it—and the DIP has made it much worse.

The picture with our current Type 45 destroyers and their replacements is not much better. Our Type 45s primarily provide air defence. One was parked in the Thames estuary to defend the Olympics in 2012 because we do not have any other air defence. They go out of service from 2035. Their replacements are supposed to be crewed common combat vessels such as mother ships. Various autonomous ships, which provide missiles, sensors or underwater and above-water support, are meant to be arranged around them. A whole fleet of different ships is therefore meant to replace the destroyers and some other elements of our Navy. That is the hybrid Navy that was much touted last week in the media coverage of the DIP.

I am totally in favour of moving towards autonomy as fast as we can. However, it is worth saying that the maritime domain, particularly the High North, is the most difficult in which to do autonomy. I have spent a lot of time at sea and I can tell hon. Members that everything breaks all the time. There is a reason why the maritime domain is the last to be autonomised. We started with air because that is predictable and quite easy to do, although the aircraft still do not fly in bad weather. We then moved to the ground stuff for picking up casualties and dropping off ammunition. However, the new ships—the common combat vessels—are simply PowerPoints at the moment, yet we expect to move from PowerPoints to power projection on the high seas in nine years with not just one class, but several classes of ships that have to work together. That seems quite risky to me. If we take what is happening to the frigate fleet and what is happening to the destroyer fleet together, it is fair to say that the DIP spells the end of the Royal Navy as we know it.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

I will make some progress because I am having eyes made at me by Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DIP commits £8.6 billion to the global combat air programme, which is the sixth-generation fighter jet that we are building with Italy and Japan. Realistically, we will get the jets in service sometime after 2040. They are manned fighter jets. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds forward to beyond Putin’s death—he will probably be buried by that point—and ask themselves whether, in 2040, humans will be flying fighter jets. I think the answer is no. The Minister is a former pilot, so he will always argue for humans in fighter jets, but I will present my argument.

When we dig into GCAP, we find that it is a crewed rather than an uncrewed system because that is what our Japanese partners wanted.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Martin]

I am afraid that I will not because I want to make progress.

We are privileging a good diplomatic relationship, which would weather the storm of our pulling out of GCAP, over military capability. We must consider whether we want manned fighter jets in 2040 or a Royal Navy right now. Do we want frigates and destroyers in the next four years? Do we want to transition effectively, in a funded way, to a hybrid Navy, or manned fighter jets in 2040?

The same story is repeated wherever we look: deep precision strike missiles are due in the early 2030s; nuclear-enabled F-35As are due in the early 2030s; putting 76,000 soldiers in the British Army to reverse the Tory cuts is an investment through to 2035. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members were waiting for that—I had to get one little elbow in the ribs. Time and again, the capability that the threat demands by 2030 is scheduled for after 2030, funded by a spending review that has not happened and has been signed off by no one.

That leaves one final question: does the current Prime Minister believe his own threat assessment? If he does and he is not funding it—not putting his money, or our money, where his mouth is—that is highly negligent. Perhaps he does not believe his own intelligence chiefs’ assessments and those of his partners. In that case, he should tell us. I fear that future generations will look back at this Labour Government’s approach to defence with their heads in their hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We live in an increasingly unstable world. From Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine to the conflict in the middle east, the threats to our national security have grown, and families across the country have felt the consequences through higher bills and rising prices. We cannot afford to ignore the reality of the world we face, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) so eloquently put it, the question we need to address is this: “What does warfighting readiness actually mean to this Government, to our forces and to our country?”

It is worth reminding the House and our constituents—as it would not have been thought from the opening speeches today—that this Government inherited armed forces that had been hollowed out by years of under-investment, overstretch and a failure to keep pace with modern warfare. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) that this destruction was a result of initiatives such as the coalition Government’s 2011 defence basing review, which reduced the number of times our Type 45s were serviced, thus giving us this challenge.

Ships, aircraft and tanks, and indeed personnel, are not built overnight, so I am proud that this Labour Government are beginning to put that right—and to put it right across Government, because this is not just the role of the Ministry of Defence. This Government deserve credit for changing course. Over the next four years, we will invest £298 billion in defence. The defence investment plan will help us to modernise our armed forces by investing in drones and autonomous systems, building at least six new warships, and strengthening the capabilities that our services need to respond to today’s security challenges. It reflects and learns from the lessons of recent conflicts, and ensures that our defence capabilities will keep pace with the changing nature of war. Although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that this is too little too late, I do agree that we need to move and ensure that the sector is more rapidly equipped for national security and for growth.

We know that increasing defence spending alone is not enough. We also need stronger industrial bases and a system that allows for swift procurement, and that means backing British defence manufacturers and innovative small and medium-sized enterprises with better access to finance so that they can grow and create skilled jobs and apprenticeships and strengthen our national resilience. In my constituency, for instance, defence jobs and national security go hand in hand.

That is why I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will look again at joining the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Spearheaded by Prime Minister Carney in Canada, the DSRB could help unlock private investment for the defence sector and support the industrial capacity that our armed forces really need. We should seize every opportunity to work with our allies to strengthen our defence industrial base, and we should seize every opportunity to ensure that we can not only have research and development here, but have the opportunity to scale up British companies so that they choose to invest and grow here and not abroad.

Defence is about far more than equipment and technology. Our greatest strength is the people who serve this country. That is why, as well as improving defence design and manufacturing, we must continue to improve the support that those people receive. When we extend the armed forces covenant across Government, we must ensure that our people know about it, and we must continue to deliver the £9 billion defence housing strategy to improve service homes. As I have constantly argued, we should also seek to improve paternity service leave for fathers and families. If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about recruiting, retaining and supporting the people who keep our country safe.

Britain faces significant security challenges, and meeting them requires sustained investment, a strong defence industry, and a firm commitment to those who serve our country. It also requires—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) so brilliantly argued—an open and honest conversation with the public, so that citizens in the United Kingdom can really understand what warfighting readiness means; so that they can understand the challenges and the very real threats that we face in the UK, the priorities that we may need to make, and the misinformation and dangers that the cyber world holds out there. These are conversations that we know are happening in our allied countries, such as Norway and Finland—conversations that will make us all warfighting ready.

This Labour Government are rebuilding our armed forces, they are backing British defence jobs, and they are strengthening our national security for the future. Much has been done, and there is still much more to do, but I have every faith that we as a Labour Government will rise to the challenge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a salary of up to £1 billion, he is cosplaying as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), isn’t he? Seriously, we are the third-largest cash spender in NATO. At the spending review next year, we will be setting out an increase in defence spending. That is what every Defence Minister wants to see and, I imagine, what those on all sides of the House want to see. It is not just what we spend on defence that is important; it is how we spend it and on what capabilities. As can be seen from the DIP, we are transforming our armed forces to be more capable, more lethal and better able to defend the UK and our allies.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

T6. Two weeks ago, alongside colleagues, I met a network of families and parents from all three armed forces. I heard from serving personnel about the real strain of starting a family while serving our country. A recent snapshot survey by the Dad Shift of over 450 serving forces members found that 90% believed that two weeks of paternity leave is not enough. Does the Minister agree that increasing paternity leave for those who serve in the armed forces would boost retention, strengthen resilience and give our children a better start in life? Does he agree that our armed forces deserve better?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. She is a doughty champion of our servicepeople and we are very grateful for her support. As someone who has four children who were all raised in the service, I understand the pressures of service life. While service personnel are not covered by statutory paternity entitlements, the armed forces occupational paternity leave scheme provides equivalent arrangements. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on this matter to continue exploring further support, raising awareness across defence of the available options and working with the families federations to inform future policy decisions.

Defence Investment Plan

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I genuinely welcome the question from the hon. Member, not least because often no Members from his party are in attendance for defence debates. I think he has previously made the point that he represents more members of the armed forces in his constituency than anyone else. I therefore make the point to him gently that it would not be unreasonable for us to have a slightly more constructive dialogue about these things. I hope that he will consider that for the future.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth, as the home of the Royal Navy, welcomes the defence investment plan, with investment in the hybrid Navy, at least six new warships and the biggest upgrade to our naval base for 45 years. It will strengthen national security in a new era of warfare and support skilled jobs, but ships and technology are not enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to set out how the Government will ensure that the necessary skills and training are in place to build and sustain this high-tech force? Will he confirm that he will continue to work at pace to improve armed forces housing and keep our personnel at the heart of this plan?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of our people and making sure that they are properly supported. I know that she, as a local Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, takes these matters seriously. Of course, we would be delighted to meet her.

Defence Investment Plan

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?

[Luke Pollard]

As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.

Defence Readiness

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend has remarkable foresight, because I will be coming to the Chagos issue.

This is the key point: had the Prime Minister held his nerve and reformed the benefits system, toughening the rules for working-age benefits and keeping the two-child limit, as was his previous position, he could have found the billions to fund defence rather than entrenching welfare dependency even further. Given this total failure of nerve from the Prime Minister, he had some brass neck to use his response to the King’s Speech last Wednesday to accuse us of “defence austerity”. Let me remind the House that last year the Government insisted on £2.6 billion-worth of reductions to the Ministry of Defence budget. This year, they are insisting on a further £3.5 billion of cuts. They will say that they were the last Government to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, in 2010, but they always omit the caveat that when that same Labour Government came to power in 1997, they inherited defence spending from us at 3%.

Indeed, in talking about so-called austerity, this Government also conveniently forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, had Labour won the election in 2010, it was planning to cut 25% from the defence budget. At least their Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time had the good grace to leave a note confessing that there was no money left, once again relying on us to clear up the mess of a Labour Government who had run out of other people’s money, not for the first time in history.

The worst thing about Labour’s resorting to history is that it is completely irrelevant. I have repeatedly accepted that defence spending fell under successive Governments since the end of the cold war. That is irrefutable, but it was because the world we lived in was one where we thought peace would last. Today, however, the threat is completely transformed and, instead of looking back, the public want us to confront the challenges we face right now, to be ready for battle and above all to be honest about the choices needed to find the cash for defence. That is why we have started to set out fully funded steps towards spending 3% of GDP on defence, as was last achieved under a Conservative Government.

Let us take the example of Chagos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) did in his very good intervention. Labour Members may delude themselves that, like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, their Chagos deal is merely resting, and pining for the archipelago, but we know that the deal is dead. It is an ex-treaty. Even if they disagree, with no treaty legislation in the King’s Speech, it must be clear even to them that the hundreds of millions of pounds due to be sent to Mauritius during this Parliament, primarily from the Ministry of Defence budget, must now be available to be spent elsewhere.

That is why, earlier this month in Portsmouth, the Leader of the Opposition and I set out that we would use Labour’s Chagos cash for a better purpose: accelerating the construction of the 13 frigates being made in Scotland that we ordered when we were in government. The fact is, there is no other way to address the serious shortage of surface ships in the short term than by accelerating the build of those 13 fantastic new warships. Indeed, just a few days after we set out our policy to do exactly that, lo and behold, HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service, confirming the urgent need to act on defence readiness and to be willing to divert cash from elsewhere.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, had his Government not got rid of shipbuilding in my city but instead put some plans into place, we may well have been able to continue to build ships there? Instead, they decimated it and left us with three incompetent Portsmouth Ministers.

[James Cartlidge]

I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project.

On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increase defence spending, with confirmation that we would restore the two-child benefit cap and use the savings for our military. We have also set out plans to move £2 billion a year of research and development funds from other Government Departments to fund drones and drone tech across the board. However, if we are to become the world leader in uncrewed warfare that I still believe we can be, not least after our extraordinary support for Ukraine, we do not just need our services to have the cash to test and train; we also need to invest billions into transforming our defence industrial base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is always a privilege to speak in this House and to represent the people of Portsmouth, a proud naval city built on service, innovation and hard work. As Portsmouth marks 100 years of city status, and as the city bids to become the next and the first ever southern city of culture, there is a real sense of pride, ambition and resilience.

Defence readiness is not just about the hard shiny stuff—it is about everything. In Portsmouth, defence is not an abstract Westminster debate but part of our identity. It is in our dockyards, our naval bases, our engineering firms, our supply chains, our communities and our homes. Generations of people in my city have helped to defend this country, and they continue to do so today, but people in Portsmouth also know what happens when Governments fail to back British industry properly. Under the Conservatives, Britain’s and Portsmouth’s shipbuilding capacity was absolutely hollowed out. Skills were lost, opportunities were missed and too many communities like Portsmouth were left behind, despite the enormous contribution that they have made and can make to our national security.

This decline did not happen overnight, and reversing it will require long-term commitment, serious investment and tangible action. That is why the second King’s Speech of this Labour Government matters. We have delivered real and lasting change for our armed forces community in our first two years, with the largest pay rise for the armed forces in 22 years and £9 billion of investment to upgrade thousands of forces homes, making them fit for service personnel and their families—changes that I have seen at first hand. These changes—alongside providing a named housing officer for every service family to improve the repairs process, and updated rules that allow families to decorate how they wish and keep pets without seeking permission—go some way towards giving back.

We have established the independent Armed Forces Commissioner, with powers to investigate general service welfare matters; we have put in place new targeted retention measures to keep those with valuable experience in the forces; we have expanded the early years childcare funding overseas to match the offer available in England; we have invested in cadets; and we continue to support specialist mental health and homelessness services for veterans. I am proud that, through my persistence, I have secured an Operation Valour centre in my city. A lot has been done, but there is so much more to do.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on being a strong spokesperson for the forces, particularly the Navy. She referred to cadets. We have a strong cadet force in Northern Ireland; all we need is a bit of extra money to ensure that thousands of extra cadets can be recruited. Most of the officers in charge work for a small fee or in a volunteer capacity. Does she agree that, when it comes to cadet forces, a lot more could be done for a lot less, but that the benefits and dividends would be incredibly great?

[Amanda Martin]

The hon. Gentleman makes some valuable points.

This second King’s Speech provides an opportunity to go further to continue to renew our contract and commitment to our armed forces, to strengthen British industry and to ensure that defence investment delivers real benefits to communities like mine.

I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) about the necessity of NATO and the threats—both visible and invisible—that we face as a country. At a time when the world feels more uncertain and dangerous, working together to strengthen our armed forces and national resilience is not optional. Our commitment to NATO and to closer working with our allies is crucial, as is the need for a public conversation about the threats and our priorities, so that, like our Nordic allies, we can have reasoned and sensible conversations in households, schools and community spaces, and do not leave the internet and the right-wing press to scaremonger.

Portsmouth has huge strengths in defence, aerospace, maritime engineering and advanced manufacturing. Companies such as Portsmouth Aviation, Accuracy International, Harwin, and Griffon Marine are already delivering world-class expertise and highly-skilled jobs. Alongside primes such as Airbus and BAE Systems, they demonstrate the depth of talent that exists in our city. I particularly welcome the new partnership between Airbus and the Solent Growth Partnership—a collaboration to create the UK’s first ever space and defence apprenticeship matching programme. This new initiative ensures talented young people who narrowly miss out on the highly competitive Airbus apprenticeships are supported into alternative, quality opportunities with local SMEs. In just two months, the partnership has already begun to support 50 young people, helping them to gain the advanced skills needed for brilliant careers in defence. This is exactly the kind of workforce development we need more of. If Britain is serious about defence readiness, then we must invest not only in equipment, but in people, skills and industry.

Portsmouth has not always received the level of investment that it deserves, and after decades of neglect, many local businesses want to see clearer signs that opportunity is coming their way. The Government have done much work to unlock defence investment and opportunities for finance, but my local businesses tell me that more needs to be done. We must have the defence investment plan, and we need other opportunities for partnership and finance so that our SMEs can be agile and innovative in their research and development, and manufacturing. I look forward to enabling and working with the Department and the Treasury to unlock this investment.

I was really disappointed to see that none of the Government’s defence manufacturing construction colleges were awarded to Portsmouth or our surrounding area. Our city has the industrial heritage, skills base and defence experts to play a leading role. I would like to explore with the Department how we can access this opportunity further and close the gap. Portsmouth businesses and Portsmouth people do not want special treatment; they just want a fair chance to survive.

As a proud naval city, Portsmouth understands the sacrifices made by our armed forces, veterans and military families better than most. We also understand the enormous contribution made every day by the workers, engineers, apprentices and small businesses that help to keep our country safe. One of the greatest strengths of Portsmouth is its people, and the way that people from all faiths and backgrounds stand together. At a time when many faiths and communities have felt under attack or targeted by division and hatred, we must continue to work together to protect tolerance, respect and community cohesion across my city and this country.

As we begin this new Session of Parliament, my focus remains solidly where it has always been: on working hard for Portsmouth North, championing local businesses, and ensuring that our city plays a full and leading role in building a fairer, stronger and more secure United Kingdom. As a Member of Parliament, I am going to pull every lever possible in this Government to ensure that these are not just words on a page, but tangible actions.

NATO and the High Arctic

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this debate and also for his service. I have not served myself, unlike the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who is speaking for the Opposition, but I have been to Norway.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because last month I spent five days in the High North with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, visiting British Marines, sailors and soldiers training in northern Norway. From my arrival in Tromsø to field exercises in the Mauken training area and aviation operations at Bardufoss, I saw at first hand what Arctic readiness really means. It is impossible to witness that work and not conclude that the High North is central to Britain’s security in some of the harshest conditions imaginable—sub-zero temperatures, deep snow, limited daylight. Our personnel demonstrated extraordinary mobility, reconnaissance capability and survival skills. They operated seamlessly alongside Norwegian and other NATO allies with professionalism, pride and determination. They understand that what they are doing matters not just to the alliance, but to the safety and prosperity of the people back home.

The High North is not a remote periphery. It is strategically vital. Maritime routes are opening; energy infrastructure is concentrated there; and critical undersea data cables that power our digital economy run through those waters. That is without the impact of climate change, which we have heard about. As competition intensifies, allied readiness in the Arctic is not optional—it is essential. The Government have recognised the realities, as has the First Sea Lord.

As vice-chair of the APPG for the armed forces, representing the Navy, and as the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, it would be remiss of me not to mention our two aircraft carriers, His Majesty’s ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. HMS Queen Elizabeth deployed to the High North in autumn 2021, as part of the UK carrier strike group 21 deployment. During that period, the ship operated in the north Atlantic and near the Arctic circle, including in exercises with Norway and our NATO allies. She returned to northern waters again in 2023 for further NATO and joint exercises, focusing on cold-weather and Arctic operations. I am proud to say that when she returned in 2023, my son was serving on that ship.

In 2022, His Majesty’s ship Prince of Wales also deployed on a major NATO maritime deployment in the north Atlantic, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The ship operated again in northern waters early in 2024, taking part in NATO’s large-scale exercise in Norway and the surrounding Arctic region. We have committed to her returning there in the near future. All the evidence is that we, as a Government and as the armed forces, as the First Sea Lord has said, are taking our national security very seriously.

Our national security policy positions the United Kingdom at the forefront of efforts to make NATO stronger, fairer and more effective, and commits us to strengthening our armed forces and protecting our national security in the face of growing threats from state actors. Those commitments are not abstract, because they underpin the Government’s defence investment pledge, agreed with NATO allies, to raise defence and security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, reinforcing our broader national resilience and collective deterrence.

The UK’s preparations for Exercise Cold Response demonstrate our commitment to NATO and our collective defence. They send a clear signal that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Norway and our allies, and that we are prepared to operate and, if necessary, defend in the most demanding of environments. Since taking office, this Government have doubled down on our strategic posture in the High North, including with plans to double the number of UK troops deployed to Norway over the next three years to strengthen security in the Arctic and the High North.

Readiness, however, is not only about kit and capability; it is about people. I not only observed exercises, but spoke at length with those deployed about welfare, sustainment and the realities of repeated operations far from home. They spoke candidly about separation from their families, the physical and mental demands of Arctic conditions, and the importance of clear political direction and sustained investment—as well as about the kit.

If we are serious about Arctic readiness, we must ensure that our defence policy reflects operational reality and not assumptions, and that our people at home and abroad get what they need. That means listening carefully to those who deliver the missions, ensuring that equipment is fit for purpose, guaranteeing that logistic chains are resilient, and recognising that deterrence begins long before a crisis emerges. It also means that we must champion the alliances that make our security possible. Labour’s manifesto reaffirmed our absolute commitment to NATO, and to ensuring that Britain plays its full part in collective defence.

While I was in the High North, our Norwegian partners spoke about their genuine respect for the capability and reliability of our British forces. Their trust has been built over decades of partnership and a real shared endeavour. In the High North our forces are prepared and professional, and they are proving that Britain remains a serious and dependable ally. Our responsibility is to match that commitment with our own, to provide the strategic clarity, resources and long-term vision that Arctic readiness demands.

I echo the three questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and add one of my own: a request from service personnel. In terms of our troops on the ground, how can we ensure that what are often seen as soft materials—their gloves, jackets, uniforms, boots, body armour and backpacks—are the best they can be? How can we ensure that they are listened to when it comes to the real things used by real people?

Ministry of Defence

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on defence. In Portsmouth North, defence is not abstract; it is jobs, apprenticeships, families and an essential part of my city’s future. My constituency is home to the Royal Navy, and I welcome the Government’s record investment in defence, which is the largest sustained investment since the cold war. That investment is not just in the hard stuff, but in families, personnel, housing, and all the necessary things for our armed services personnel.

We need to see leadership, and we have shown that in our support for Ukraine. This year’s £4.5 billion in military aid, including advanced air defence systems and lightweight multi-role missiles, shows that the UK stands firm against aggression. The war in Ukraine has taught us that warfare is changing fast, with drones, autonomous systems and uncrewed capabilities reshaping the battlefield. Agility and innovation is key, which is why the £4 billion investment in autonomous and high-tech systems matters.

Along with my small and medium-sized enterprises, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) about the need for us to be involved in the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, and to bring in long-term support and investment, opportunities and British jobs.

We are also watching escalating tensions in the middle east with concern. Recent developments highlight the importance of maintaining a credible forward presence, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further information on the deployment of HMS Dragon in her current role—I would be happy to take an intervention on that point or at the end.

In Portsmouth North this investment is real. The UK defence sector supports thousands of jobs, many connected to the Royal Navy. Defence growth deals and the £250 million fund have given us a chance to enhance local expertise, strengthen supply chains, and attract private investment into maritime technologies. SMEs are key. Many in my constituency struggle to cut through the red tape and infiltrate the MOD. The defence office for small business growth and the SME commercial pathway are vital, but they must take into account the nuances of working with the defence sector.

Skills are also crucial, and the £182 million defence skills package and the defence technical excellence colleges are really important. Today I was proud to launch, at the Space-Comm Expo here in London, a partnership between Airbus and the Solent growth partnership, to create the UK’s first ever space and defence apprenticeship matching programme, and to provide local jobs and opportunities for young people.

However, we must be candid: the previous Government left procurement over-committed and underfunded, but this Government understand that growth must go hand in hand with security. I echo the calls for a national conversation about the ever-changing world in which we live and what extended defence spending might mean for our public services and our priorities, because to be war-ready is not just the task of Government and our armed forces, but a task for the whole country. To conclude, I thank all who work in and with our British armed forces.

Armed Forces Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head, and I need add nothing further. We all agree and we pay tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan.

Moving on to the Bill, given its necessity to ensure that we have functioning armed forces, we will not seek to divide the House. Indeed, on national security, we should always strive for consensus where possible, as has particularly been the case on Ukraine. We have presented a united Parliament to our adversaries, which should be a source of national pride. However, as with any major piece of legislation, there will be many issues of detail that we will want to tease out in detailed scrutiny in Committee.

While we inevitably have concerns about the underlying issue of defence funding, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support in principle. In particular, I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the armed forces covenant. Having been the party that first introduced the covenant, it will be of no surprise that we support moves to strengthen both its purpose and delivery. That said, when it comes to our veterans, we remain resolute in our total opposition to the Government’s policy in respect of those who served in Operation Banner to protect all of us from terrorism. The House surely cannot ignore the fact that as we debate this Bill, which is designed to strengthen our armed forces, Labour continues in parallel with its plan to repeal our legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—and threaten a new era of vexatious claims against former soldiers. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will say more about that in his winding-up speech.

On the Bill’s proposals relating to the service justice system, there is recognition on both sides of the House that we have massive lessons to learn. Work to improve the system began under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State recognised. After publication of the Atherton report, which identified cultural failings in the forces, the then Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, took steps to enforce changes so that we could better protect women in the armed forces. In 2022 we introduced a series of new policies—for example, clamping down on unacceptable sexual behaviour by introducing a zero-tolerance approach and banning instructor-trainee relationships of any sort. We also established the defence serious crimes unit. As a result of the changes we made, more people have been empowered to come forward, and service personnel who have breached those policies have been discharged or convicted as a direct result.

I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to ensure that the service justice system protects victims of the most serious offences from further harm. The reality is that implementing cultural change in any large organisation does not happen overnight, but we will work with the Government in the forthcoming sittings on the detail of their proposals to ensure that we find a better way to deliver justice in the armed forces.

Let me move on to the proposed changes to the reserve forces. I pay tribute to all those serving as reservists, including, as was pointed out, those on Operation Interflex—they are a critical part of our fighting strength. That said, given the heightened threat level that we face today, we can surely all recognise that nations geographically closer to the Russian threat, such as Finland, draw a major part of their overall military strength and, thereby, conventional deterrence from possessing a large and active reserve.

As such, it is important that we understand more of the detail about the Government’s plans to increase the number of active reservists by 20%. That is stated in the strategic defence review, but with a vague timeline—

“most likely in the 2030s”.

We can all see that there is a big difference between 2031 and 2039, and that the threat we face is nearer. In his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us if that will be in the next Parliament or the one after that?

We also welcome proposals to make reservist life more flexible, particularly incentivising regulars to stay in the reserves as they explore new careers. In fact, that is exactly what was suggested in the Haythornthwaite review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It made the important recommendation for so-called zig-zag careers, enabling far greater flexibility between reserve and regular service. We welcome that and will look at it further.

Let me move on to the Bill’s proposals for armed forces accommodation. Buying back the defence estate was my top strategic priority as Minister for Defence Procurement.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

You didn’t do it!

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that I did not do it. The deal was done in 1996. Who was in government between 1997 and 2010 and did nothing about this issue?

Let me speak openly. When I got the job, I went to visit defence accommodation. As I have said many times, I was ashamed, but I said, “I am going to do something about this.” My former colleague Jeremy Quin, who was the Minister before me, had brought test cases, but there was no work, and nothing had happened under successive Governments. I started the work with the Treasury and with people across Government. That deal, which took a heck of a lot of negotiation, was under negotiation with the Annington group when the general election came.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth North knows the value of service. We are a proud naval city, home to serving personnel, reservists, veterans and their families, and to the many charities and individuals who support them. We are a city whose identity is inseparable from the Royal Navy. More than 9,000 veterans of all services live in Portsmouth. Thousands more serve at His Majesty’s Royal Naval Base, Portsmouth, and many families in my constituency move where duty sends them, putting down roots again and again in the service of this nation. That is why the Armed Forces Bill matters so deeply to Portsmouth North. The Bill renews the nation’s contract with those who serve. It delivers better homes, stronger protections, fairer support for veterans and serving personnel and greater readiness at a time of global threat.

Let me start with housing, because for far too long forces families were badly let down. Under the Conservatives, satisfaction with service family accommodation collapsed to record lows as families lived with damp, mould and unsafe conditions. This Bill draws a clear line under that failure. Indeed, I am proud to see that this work has already begun under this Government, with real change to be seen in houses in areas such as Hilsea. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for visiting and seeing this change.

But we are going to do more, by establishing a publicly owned Defence Housing Service and backing it with a fully costed £9 million defence housing strategy. Change under Labour is real. This investment will directly improve service family accommodation in Portsmouth, which will improve retention and provide stability and quality of life for those who serve and live in our almost 700 local homes. That is also only possible because we ended the disastrous privatisation of military housing and brought 36,000 forces family homes back into public ownership, saving £200 million a year—money we are now reinvesting for our service personnel.

I am proud that the Bill delivers on a solemn promise that we made at the general election: for the first time, the armed forces covenant will be extended across every part of government. Central Government, local authorities and public bodies will be legally required to consider the unique circumstances of service life. For Portsmouth North, where thousands of veterans and service personnel rely on local healthcare, housing, employment and support, that will end the postcode lottery and deliver fairness for those who are serving and those who have already given up so much. I ask the Minister to tell me in his summing up how clear statutory guidance with practical examples will support consistent delivery on the ground and give confidence to those responsible for making the covenant work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and join her campaign by making Portsmouth the national covenant city, alongside Aldershot’s covenant town.

Those who serve our country must be able to do so with dignity and respect. This Bill strengthens the service justice system, improves support for victims and ensures that serious offences are dealt with swiftly and properly. It also delivers new protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment in line with our mission to halve violence against women and girls. Supporting victims and raising standards does not weaken our armed forces; it strengthens them.

In conclusion, the Bill exposes a clear divide between those who back our armed forces and those who prefer slogans to substance. The Tories talk tough on defence, but their record is one of abysmal failure. Their 14 years in government left morale at record lows, forces housing in a shameful state, our services decimated, and the no-detriment service of our service personnel unrecognised, unknown and, for many, invisible. But there is another group I must mention: Reform UK. Reform Members speak loudly outside this Chamber about patriotism and respect for the armed forces. Yet when this House debates housing, welfare and legal protection for those who serve and have served, they are conspicuous by their absence. On debates marking D-day, VJ Day and moments of enormous significance to my naval city and to veterans across the country, Reform Members are shamefully not here.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that given that Reform is in control of more than 10 county councils up and down the country, which will be responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant in areas such as education and social welfare, the inability of its Members to show up today is shameful?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely, which is why I ask the Minister how we can ensure that the covenant is statutory across all our local authorities.

Patriotism is not a slogan or social media post. It is showing up, voting for better homes for forces families, backing the armed forces covenant, strengthening the protections for those who serve, and listening and supporting individual constituents as an MP and collectively as Government. Help for Heroes, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity and the Naval Children’s Charity have all welcomed the direction of the Bill and stand ready to support its implementation so that lived experience continues to shape delivery.

This is a Bill for homes fit for heroes and for fairness for thousands of veterans in Portsmouth and for those serving. I am proud to say that two special naval personnel are in the Gallery today: my son and his girlfriend. I want to give them and all others who serve and have served dignity, respect, support and readiness in an increasingly dangerous world. Since being elected, I have stood up proudly for my armed forces community, alongside a city that has always stood up for our armed forces. Today this Bill ensures that Government will do the same.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on hypothetical what ifs. What I can say is that security guarantees that are being agreed at this point are an essential element of any potentially successful peace negotiations. If they reach agreement, those negotiations will test what, at the moment, Putin says is his approach to Ukraine and its future.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and leadership. As the Member for Portsmouth North, the home of the Royal Navy, I pay tribute to all our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that continued strong UK leadership from our Prime Minister and commitment and consensus across the whole of this House with our allies is vital to enforcing sanctions on Russia and to strengthening security and achieving peace in Ukraine, and in doing so, ensuring security in my port city and in Britain too?

[John Healey]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the statement and the wise words that she has set out for the House. She speaks with great authority and great strength for her home city, and I think the House will have welcomed her words.

Ukraine

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have announced that we intend to introduce the maritime services ban on Russian LNG, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export globally. The reason it is being phased in is so that it can be done in lockstep with our EU friends, who are introducing equivalent restrictions. He is right to identify the issue, and the Government are right to take steps to address it. I am an impatient so-and-so, and I know that the efforts that we are making across Government are based on a similar impatience to get it done fast, but it must be done well.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and send solidarity to Ukraine. As Christmas approaches, I would like to thank all who serve in our armed forces and wish them a merry Christmas, wherever they are in the world.

I want to pause and remember Lance Corporal George Hooley, who, as we heard from the Minister, has returned home to the UK. Before his passing, Lance Corporal Hooley wrote a letter to his friends and family to be opened in the event of his death, as many members of our armed forces do. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to share a few of his beautiful, poignant and proud words:

“If you are reading this, it means I didn’t make it home. Please don’t let that be the thing that breaks you. You know I was doing what I believed in as well as loved, with people I respected, and for reasons that matter to me, my country and democracy and freedom in this world. I was proud of what I was doing.

Don’t remember me with sadness and loss. Be proud. I went out doing what I trained to do, what I chose to do, and I had all of you in my heart the whole way.”

Rest in peace, Lance Corporal George Hooley.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for reading Lance Corporal George Hooley’s words into the record. I know how close to home that will hit with her, as a mother of someone serving in our armed forces, and indeed other Members across the House. We ask extraordinary things of our people. What they do and the sacrifices they make—the ultimate sacrifice in this case, but also the sacrifice at Christmas—is appreciated on the Government Benches, on the Opposition Benches and, I believe, by everyone in the United Kingdom.