UK Military Base Protection

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he approached his question. I share his concerns to ensure that Members of Parliament are adequately informed about defence. Indeed, it was the Defence Secretary’s intent, when we took office, to renew and refresh the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Parliament with a more open conversation. We are endeavouring to do that with further briefings and I will take his suggestion on board as we look at how we implement the review.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

First, on Armed Forces Day, I want to thank all who serve and have served, including my own son, and recognise the huge contribution made by our armed forces, alongside all service families in Portsmouth, the very proud home of the Royal Navy. Secondly, I would like to say a huge “Thank you” for Armed Forces Day on Saturday, and for being able to take part in the flag raising in my city to show my gratitude and respect to all those serving.

Given the fast-changing landscape alongside the recent disrespectful incident at RAF Brize Norton, with so many armed forces personnel based in Portsmouth and personnel from Portsmouth based around the globe, can the Minister confirm whether wider action is being taken to review and strengthen security across all our military bases, in both the UK and abroad, and what force protection measures are in place to keep our personnel and their families safe here, abroad and in my city?

[Luke Pollard]

As the MP for Devonport, can I say to my hon. Friend, the MP for one of the Portsmouth seats, just how proud we are of our Royal Navy, no matter where those ships or capabilities are based? It is certainly true that the review commissioned by the Defence Secretary looks not just at what happened at RAF Brize Norton, but at the application of that lesson across the defence estate. The force protection of our people, both home and abroad, is a priority for this Government. We will be undertaking the review at pace and I suspect I will be back in front of the House in due course to announce further measures.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome this agreement, which safeguards a vital national security asset and cements the United Kingdom’s role at the heart of global defence co-operation. Let us be clear: this treaty is about protecting Britain’s ability to defend itself and its allies. Diego Garcia is not just a piece of land in the Indian ocean, but the backbone of our joint operations with the United States and a linchpin of the UK’s ability to project power, to deter threats and to ensure security in an increasingly unstable world. All our closest allies—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India—support this deal. NATO supports this deal. They understand what Diego Garcia represents: unmatched strategic certainty. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about how we will be protecting the area around the islands?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our close allies take a close interest, and they can see that this treaty is the best way of securing—for the UK, for the US and for themselves—a vital base on which we can help both to project military power and to reinforce regional security. My hon. Friend will see the 24 nautical mile buffer zone—an exclusion zone, if you like—that allows us to control the seas and the air. We would not be able to do that, increasingly, without the deal. She will see that sweep and an effective veto on any developments across the archipelago to ranges of at least 100 nautical miles. She will also see the value of a deal that guarantees our full operational sovereignty and therefore prevents any undermining of our ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum. As I said in my statement, that is so crucial to the unique capabilities that this base and its operations offer to this country and to the United States.

Royal British Legion

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate. In Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy, we know all too well the sacrifices made by our service personnel past and present. Our city has been at the heart of British naval history for centuries, and with that comes a deep understanding of the cost of service and the importance of remembrance every day.

The Royal British Legion has been a steadfast supporter of the armed forces community, providing vital assistance to veterans, service personnel and their families. It has been a lifeline for thousands who have struggled with the physical, mental and financial burdens of service. Whether through cost of living grants, debt advice or war pension support, the legion has ensured that those who have served our country are not left behind.

I take this opportunity to give a special shout-out to Terry and Denise Bryant, and all the poppy sellers in Pompey. I am honoured to have sold poppies alongside them, and I am pleased to have hosted a thank-you breakfast for them and veterans in December—I was honoured that the Defence Minister in the other place joined us.

Portsmouth is not just a city of naval history, but a city of service, with thousands of veterans and active personnel calling it home, and the work of the RBL is vital across our community. However, the Minister will be aware that challenges remain. The Government must uphold the principles of the armed forces covenant and ensure that it works in modern times. It has sat on a shelf for far too long, meaning that our service personnel and veterans have been let down for many years.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that all councils must follow the lead of Hertfordshire county council, which was one of the first to launch an armed forces covenant?

[Amanda Martin]

I agree 100%.

It is important that public bodies routinely identify veterans to ensure that they receive the support they need. Veterans deserve proper housing, adequate welfare support, and fair and timely treatment when it comes to military compensation. It is vital that, as Members of Parliament, our doors are always open to our veterans and service personnel. Our service families, including those of non-UK personnel who serve alongside our forces, should not face unnecessary barriers when settling in the UK.

In Portsmouth, we are proud of our naval heritage, but pride alone does not provide for our veterans. That is why we must continue to support the Royal British Legion in its mission. I urge the Government to continue listening to the voices of the armed service community, and to ensure that we follow through on the commitments we have made.

Finally, I thank those in Portsmouth who remember the sacrifices of those who serve and served—not just on Remembrance Day but every day—and the role that our Royal British Legion plays alongside our community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I will happily come and talk through that in due course. I have been in the military for 24 years and have spent a lot of time shooting, and I can see its benefits.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to ensure small and medium enterprises are able to participate in defence procurement contracts.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

SMEs can help us make defence an engine for growth in all our nations and regions. I want far more involvement from SMEs in our procurement, providing agility, innovation and resilience as we seek to ramp up our industrial production. That is why the Prime Minister recently launched a new defence SME support hub, and committed us to publishing a new target for MOD spend with SMEs.

[Amanda Martin]

Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the privilege of visiting His Majesty’s Royal Naval Base in Portsmouth, to meet personnel and see equipment used by our armed forces that is made by Accuracy International and SIG Sauer, an SME firearms manufacturer in my constituency. Accuracy International employs more than 100 local people. What is the Minister doing to ensure that companies such as Accuracy International and SIG Sauer are given a fair shot in defence procurement and can continue to provide jobs in my city?

[Maria Eagle]

A fair shot—I commend my hon. Friend on her puns. Accuracy International has made a great contribution to UK defence and exports. I have been talking to defence firms, many of which are SMEs, during the defence industrial strategy consultation. I hope that the changes that we will make to speed up procurement and provide more access to opportunities will transform their chances of doing business with us, while making defence an engine for growth across all our nations and regions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

We have taken many steps to try to improve the capabilities of the Ukrainians when it comes to drone technology, and I am perfectly happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy, but it is also the proud home of many companies in the defence sector: BAE, Airbus and Accuracy International, to name just a few. Those companies provide fantastic job opportunities for my constituents, but they have faced real difficulties in the last decade. What steps is the Department taking to support our defence sector in the UK and in Portsmouth in particular—both the businesses themselves and the recruitment and training of the skilled workforce—as part of our Government’s industrial strategy?

[Maria Eagle]

I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend shortly when I visit some of those businesses in her constituency. The defence industrial strategy is the way in which we will seek to deal with the issues that she has raised.

Unity Contract

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am not sure that is even the policy of the Conservative party—the shadow Defence Secretary can confirm whether that is the case. If I may say so, it is a bit sleight of hand to say that taking out a big chunk of our spending, which we are actually spending, will leave us well in deficit. Of course it would. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the importance he attaches to spending on conventional defence. That is an important point, and once the strategic defence review is published he will be able to see the threats it identifies and how we will improve our capability to deal with them.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Government and Rolls-Royce on their fantastic and innovative Unity project. As today’s welcome announcement shows, defence is a fantastic pipeline for building skills and refining the jobs and growth that this country needs. That is felt and needed nowhere more than in my constituency, the home of the Royal Navy and of so many defence companies, be they national or SMEs. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), I intend to hold a roundtable later this year on growth strategy. Can the Minister assure the House that the defence industrial strategy will have a focus on training and skills and will promote and prioritise British industry?

[Maria Eagle]

I commend my hon. Friend for holding a roundtable; I have done a few of those around the country lately. It is quite illuminating to hear what comes back, particularly from small firms, and it will be informing our defence industrial strategy. I agree that there is much potential in all our constituencies across the nations and regions to get economic growth and jobs from boosting SMEs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The career transition pathway that has just been set up is a great example of how we are helping those leaving the services to transition into civilian life. Op Courage, in particular, has had more than 35,000 referrals; it is for anybody with mental health issues caused by their service. I recommend going on to gov.uk and looking at the services available, as they are pretty ample.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The defence sector provides well paid jobs across my city and constituency, and across the country. With 10,000 adults in the constituency on the minimum wage, will the Minister help me to work with the Department for Education to ensure that kids in my city get opportunities to work in this brilliant sector?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very important question. I would like to talk further about this. We have been working with the Department for Education—

Service Accommodation

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed right, not only in his considerable contribution to the deliberations relating to the service accommodation report, but in preceding years, when he served in such a distinguished manner on the Defence Committee, which, by the way, works on a cross-party basis and the report was agreed unanimously. He is also right to highlight that the management of the contracts will be essential. The Committee’s report has identified the serious problems and now the ball is in the Government’s court as to how they manage that. However, it is great to see the cross-party working and I hope that will help to address the issues in a more timely manner.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Committee’s “Service Accommodation” report and recommendations, but I am not surprised by its findings. I also welcome the Government’s move to purchase back housing stock that should never have been sold off and the hundreds of houses that will bring back to Portsmouth. However, the issue of Ministry of Defence housing is huge, because of the years of managed decline under the previous Government. There has been no real investment, just sticking plasters.

Portsmouth in particular has been underfunded, and those in naval properties miss out more than most, because they can be in their homes for longer than those in other services as they are based at the port. There is a cap on void works, which means that, if a family moves out, the house needs renovating and it will be withdrawn. This causes undue stress to families who have already selected schools, sorted out their removals and left jobs. There is not always a guarantee of a house in the same area.

There is so much to say on behalf of Portsmouth service personnel, but, lifting words from the pages of the report, I invite the Committee and the Ministers to meet me, the contractors and service personnel in Portsmouth to see the reality of the situation.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. She is also speaking with considerable experience, because of the importance of Portsmouth to our nation’s defence, and the sheer scale of its service accommodation. Indeed, I look forward to visiting Portsmouth. The Defence Committee, along with its staff, will be visiting the city very soon. And, yes, every instance of substandard accommodation is unacceptable, and we must collectively work to rectify matters.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment. Having raised this issue with the Minister, who has a look on his face that says, “This wasn’t in my folder,” I very much hope that he will, being an artful chap, seek some inspiration and extemporise by saying something encouraging so that we do not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I was going to conclude my remarks there, but I do not want to be accused of curtailing the debate, so I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Amanda Martin]

Although we—and, I think, service personnel—recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about pensions in relation to those specific incidents, I will make three points if I may. First, the amendment states that

“A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions”.

That would give a rather larger weighting to the direction of the commissioner, potentially over the direction of service personnel and their families. I talk to service personnel in my city of Portsmouth, which is the home of the Royal Navy, and they might prefer for it to state that a general service welfare matter may include issues relating to housing, postings, their professional careers, their rules of engagement and access to local services.

Including that single provision would direct the commissioner and would not allow for issues to come up from personnel and the grassroots—from our people on the ground. Should a matter come forward as an issue they want to raise, obviously it is in the gift of the commissioner to do so, but actually the amendment would limit things. From the conversations I have had with personnel in my area, this is not at the top of their list. They would not like to be directed on what they can bring forward to the commissioner.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument, but—

--- Later in debate ---

I know that work has been going on on this, so the purpose of my speech was to reiterate the issue and to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us, I hope, that progress has been made and that it will be easier for military personnel and their families with SEN children to port EHCPs from one LEA to another.

[Amanda Martin]

As a teacher who worked in Portsmouth North, where we have a large number of naval families, I absolutely agree with you that SEND is in crisis. For families who need to move, the concerns are amplified. I sit on the Education Committee, and SEND is one of the top priorities that we are looking at with this Government.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will know, not least from her service on that important Committee, of what is called the statutory override. In a nutshell, local authorities must produce a balanced budget each year, but, because of the very great pressure on local authorities that are also LEAs, they have been allowed to overspend on SEN for several years because it is such a big pressure. Bluntly, it would have bankrupted some of them otherwise. She may be able to update us, but I understand that the default position is that the statutory override is due to expire in March 2026. In other words, when local authorities are planning their new budgets for the ’26-’27 financial year, those budgets will have to balance.

I served on the Public Accounts Committee for a couple of years in the previous Parliament. About a month ago, the National Audit Office produced a report, which I am sure the Education Committee will look at, basically saying that the current system is unsustainable. This will be a challenge for the new Government. I am not trying to make a partisan point here, but it was a challenge for the previous Government and it will be a challenge for the new Labour Government, too. I mention that just to drive home the scale of the SEN challenge. There is no evidence that armed forces personnel are proportionately more or less likely to have a special needs child than members of civilian communities, so statistically it is a big problem for them, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What it has to do with the Bill is that this issue cropped up quite a lot in the public evidence session. I respectfully refer him to the Hansard report of Tuesday’s proceedings. A number of witnesses raised the veterans issue, and I believe a number of members of the Committee followed up with questions. We had tabled the new clause by Monday night because we knew that there was concern within the veterans’ community about the independence of the OVA and therefore the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which to be fair is a theme that we have discussed repeatedly today. That is the context in which the new clause was tabled on Monday evening, but it is worrying that one of the three veterans commissioners apparently felt compelled to resign because some in Government were seeking to crimp what they were trying to do on behalf of the veterans they were appointed to serve.

Now that the OVA is back within the MOD, and given that the decision was taken on the Government’s watch, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—we have a MOD Minister here, not a Cabinet Office Minister—that there will be no further attempts to impinge on the independence of any veterans commissioner by anyone in Government, any more than we would want them to impinge on the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner. I have three very specific questions to that effect; then I will allow the Minister to reply.

First, where is the veterans commissioner for England? We were told, when I raised this issue on Second Reading, that the Department was working on it. At one point, there was going to be a UK-wide veterans commissioner, which then seemingly morphed into a veterans commissioner for England. We have one for Scotland and one for Wales—we had one for Northern Ireland too, but he resigned—so where are we on the veterans commissioner for England? Why should English veterans be at any disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the other three nations of the awesome foursome? Those English veterans served the Crown too. Where is their commissioner?

Secondly, what is the timetable for replacing the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner? Presumably the Government do not want that post to remain vacant for long, particularly with all the utter chaos over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Thirdly, what formal assurances can the Minister give on the record that this will not happen again? Those are my three questions.

[Amanda Martin]

You state—

[Mr Francois]

“He”!

[Amanda Martin]

Sorry. The right hon. Gentleman states that the Veterans Minister is vital and the fact that they do not sit in Cabinet now is a concern. Can he tell me which Tory MP sits in the shadow Cabinet to represent veterans?

[Mr Francois]

The clue is in the name: the shadow Cabinet is there to shadow the actual Cabinet. If there is not a Veterans Minister in the actual Cabinet, it is not necessarily axiomatic that there would be one in the shadow Cabinet.

To be clear, the decision to take the Veterans Minister out of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and roll them in under the Ministry of Defence as—no disrespect—a junior Minister, was a decision taken by the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Excuse me—one at a time! I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley to my left—dare I put it that way—saying that the Prime Minister promised he would not do that. It was a decision taken by the Labour Government. I have read out the comments from the commissioners, who are there to represent the interests of the veterans’ community; I am not imagining it. The community are clearly very concerned, so perhaps we could hear the Minister’s reply.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

There are two questions there. On the first, the honest answer is that it depends on the KC. In my limited experience, different King’s counsels tend to charge different rates. One would hope that the commissioner would employ someone who was good at their job, so yes there would be a public expenditure cost.

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I am going to come in a moment to the exact rationale for why we have sought to mandate that at least one of the commissioner’s staff should be a qualified KC; he slightly pre-empts me. But I hope I can convince the Committee that there is a genuinely good reason for doing so and I am going to produce at least one real-world example. If that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will make some progress. Did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, sitting next to him, also seek to intervene or have I inadvertently answered her question?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I will come to it afterwards.

[Mr Francois]

Okay, thank you.

We live in an increasingly litigious world, including the wider prevalence of so-called lawfare issues on the modern battlefield. Therefore it seems important to us that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice in carrying out their duties. We believe that could best be provided by a qualified King’s counsel, perhaps specialising in areas of employment law and other matters that would relate to the welfare of armed service personnel and their families.

There is a live issue in the armed forces community: if they take life, which sometimes they are required to do in the service of the country, what are the legal implications for them, maybe even decades later? The issue is generally referred to as lawfare. Let me give a specific example of why this matters, Mr Efford. I am going to refer to a case that has concluded; I reassure you and your Clerk that the sub judice rule does not apply, I believe, because the case is over.

On 10 December, the BBC reported, under the heading “Ex-lawyer spared jail over false Iraq War claims”, that

“Phil Shiner was given a two-year suspended sentence at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud relating to legal aid claims made in 2007.”

For background,

“The former boss of Public Interest Lawyers was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2017 for pursuing false torture and murder allegations against British troops.”

The article continues:

“A lengthy inquiry into wider allegations of abuse at the hands of British soldiers established ‘beyond doubt’ that all the most serious allegations had been found to be ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies’.”

According to the National Crime Agency, Mr Shiner received around £3 million towards the cost of legal aid for the cases in which he was involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his accurate reading of the legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the legislation is drafted to be facilitative. For instance—we will come to this later—it does not necessarily define exactly what are and are not “general service welfare matters”. It provides a broad remit. But for the reasons that I hope I have been able to articulate, we believe that although the schedule that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would facilitate the Armed Forces Commissioner in seeking to appoint a legal adviser, that would have a spending implication. It could be—it is not inconceivable—that some in the Ministry of Defence would baulk at that. The intention of putting the provision into the Bill is to include beyond peradventure the right of the commissioner to seek to appoint a senior legal adviser. In a sense, it does not compel the commissioner to do that, but it gives them that power very clearly.

[Amanda Martin]

You say that your amendment does not tell the commissioner that they should make the appointment, but it states:

“The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel”.

Since there is a “must”, what you just said is not correct. If we agree to this amendment, we are saying that the commissioner, who we want to be independent, will not have the choice of who they include in their staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned. Your amendment says “must include”.

[The Chair]

Order. Can I remind Members about the use of the word “you”?

[Amanda Martin]

Sorry.

[The Chair]

“You” refers to me in the Chair, not to the person opposite. Just a gentle reminder about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I will respond in kind to what the Minister says. As he will recall, his calculation was that even if the KC that we have been debating conceptually were full-time—we can argue about the rate—it might cost about £1.3 million a year. We never stipulated that it would be a full-time post; I think the Committee has explored. The essence of amendment 9 is that the commissioner would have access to high-level legal advice. Even if it were £1.3 million, given that our policy going into the election was to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, I think we could have found £1.3 million within that number. The Minister is the one with the challenge, because he does not have a date for 2.5%. If he ever gets one, we would all like to hear it. I think we could have afforded the post, even if it had been full-time—and we did not mandate that it had to be.

[Amanda Martin]

My understanding is that the last time that the defence budget was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government, and that in the 14 years under the Conservatives there was not a 2.5% budget.

[Mr Francois]

That is correct, and under the Tories in the mid-1990s it was well over 3%. The problem is that a lot happened in the 14 years, including a war in Ukraine. That is why we probably need to spend 2.5% as quickly as possible.

Even if the Minister’s calculation is correct, by the time a senior NCO in the British Army gets to the rank of WO2, the King—or the Queen, before him—will probably have spent the best part of £1 million on training them. If they then leave, perhaps because they have had a very bad experience at the hands of the likes of Mr Shiner, that is £1 million of investment that has just walked out the door.

To be fair, the Minister understands the pressure. According to some figures that I received in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the strength of the British Regular Army is 71,300. This was in October. The establishment strength—the book strength, or what it is meant to be on paper—is 73,000. It was 72,500, but then there was an add-back of another 500, partly for the two Rangers Battalions. The British Regular Army is now nearly 2,000 soldiers short of what it should be, even on paper. Unfortunately, the trend is that more people are leaving than joining.

I am not highlighting that point in order to say that the whole lawfare issue is the only reason that people are leaving the British armed forces. That is not my argument, but it is one reason, and it is likely to get worse unless the Government do something about it. That includes doing something about the so-called Northern Ireland legacy Act.

I hope I have made the point sufficiently this morning; I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has acknowledged it and dealt with it. As I think the point has been made, I will not press amendment 9 or 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.