Mike Martin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jul 2025 · Electronic Patient Record Systems · Hansard source

  More

  Blocked beds cost Pembury hospital £18,000 every night, yet discharge teams have to manually phone care homes to place people there. My constituent Debbie has created a dashboard—it is basically like Skyscanner—to accelerate discharges by matching discharged patients to care beds. It has already received seed funding of £200,000 from Kent county council, and could save up to £7 million a year in Pembury alone. Will the Minister meet me and Debbie to discuss that idea?

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East. It is an honour and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I will speak specifically about Kent and my Tunbridge Wells constituency; I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will speak about examples in their constituencies. We are speaking about some of the most vulnerable people we represent and, as the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard, because they see the system from the inside and can see its shortcomings. In Kent, more than 21,000 children have an education, health and care plan—that is 14% above the national average. As a result of rising demand and some mismanagement by the previous Conservative administration, there was a SEND overspend in a recent year of nearly £100 million, which is now being managed down by the Department for Education. At the same time, alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and provide provision. This creates a conflicting pressure. The story is the same for local authorities everywhere where there is rising demand and declining resources. The balancing act required creates a false economy. When children do not get the support they need, they fail in their educational setting, but that means they are less likely to achieve in the world of work and are more likely to become a burden on the state in their later years. So getting this right now creates a long-term economic benefit for our society, and it is not just economically right: it is morally right that we do so to create life chances for the children under our care. To go back to the situation in Kent, under the previous Conservative administration, only 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024, and because of that Kent was put into special measures. I have called a number of times for that status to be continued because there was some improvement, in that the provision of EHCPs within the deadline went up to 65%. Kent was therefore taken out of special measures. But unfortunately, quantity does not equal quality. I do not have time to go into the litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, but they included incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. Often, when families complain about the errors, they are told by Kent county council to go to a tribunal. This is deeply cynical. Kent county council has been using tribunals not as a last resort, but as a tactic to delay, to deter and to exhaust families. In other words, the council is using tribunals to try to get families to give up seeking appropriate support for their children. And it works. Tribunals are utterly gruelling. Families and children spend months preparing for them. The emotional toll is enormous throughout the time they are preparing, and it costs, as they have to get legal advice to go to a tribunal. All the while, they do not know whether, at the end of this year-long process, the child will get the special provision that their EHCP says they require. I have spoken to Matt, one of my constituents, whose daughter Ella has cerebral palsy and has just finished year 4. Her original EHCP was issued when she was at nursery and was recently reissued. This is an example of the problems with EHCPs in Kent: the only change the council made was to replace the word “nursery” with “school”. When the family complained, they were told to go to a tribunal. They declined, for all the reasons I outlined relating to the financial and emotional cost. It later emerged that Ella’s teachers believed that a mainstream school would not meet her needs. Their application for a specialist placement was lodged but rejected by Kent council, which did not consult anyone, including Ella’s teachers or parents. It was purely a paperwork exercise. The family were again told that the only option was to go to a tribunal. At that stage, because it is so important for Ella to get specialist secondary provision for her cerebral palsy, they opted to go to tribunal. They have been given a date in May 2026. Currently, Ella has an insufficient plan because her parents declined to fight the first tribunal. They will have to wait for more than a year to fight the second tribunal, all the while wondering whether they will get the specialist provision that all the experts agree is what Ella needs.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my fellow Kent MP for his intervention; I will address many of those points as I make progress. He is right that there is a reason for the statutory deadline for EHCPs, and it would be nice if local authorities could meet it. To return to tribunals, between 2021 and 2024 Kent council spent more than £2 million on SEND tribunals, of which 98% were successful for the parents. If parents have the money and the emotional bandwidth, and can go to tribunal and fight, they will be successful. But we do not know the percentage of parents who decide that they are not able to put themselves through that process. That is one of the legacies, I am afraid to say, of Conservative mismanagement in Kent. Since Reform took over two months ago, it has gone from bad to worse. A cabinet member resigned within 45 days, which is a day longer than Liz Truss managed, so one assumes his lettuce is still going strong. Another councillor has been suspended and is under investigation by the police. The matter is now before the courts, so I cannot say much more about that, but Members can have a google. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely. That meeting was relevant to this debate, but it is only one among a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government. Reform cannot even organise its own house, let alone grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. I am glad the Government are reviewing the system, because it needs to be reformed, but real change must be driven by the principles that the Lib Dems have articulated time and again. We must listen to the voices of children and families. They do not have all the answers, but they do have insight into how the system works, and we would do well to listen to them. Where appropriate, specialist capacity must be provided for the minority of children who have EHCPs and need specialist support. For the vast majority of children who have special educational needs, we must drive inclusion in mainstream schooling, because that is appropriate. Mainstream schools prepare people for the mainstream world in a way that is more appropriate, provided that there is the extra provision, with teaching assistants and speech and language therapists, that can help the child to thrive in a mainstream setting. We are ready to work with the Government to improve the system. Some of the media reports around the scrapping of EHCPs are concerning. It seems like a bit of a red herring. The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that—and before that we had statements. If we get rid of EHCPs, we will still need a statement of needs for passporting to services. If we scrap EHCPs, what will we replace them with? I am sure the Minister will speak to this in her response to the debate, but we must have an outcomes-based review of the system rather than a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. I hope the Government will learn from some of their recent travails in that regard.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her remarks, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the Lib Dem spokes- person, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). I thank the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for their comments. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne), for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Lewes (James MacCleary) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers). There is a lot of commonality here; this is not a particularly party political issue. I say to the Minister that we all wish her well in these reforms. We want them to work, and we hope that this debate has been constructive in giving her a greater understanding of the issues that our constituents face. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  My grandmother said that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable—she was wise. She was very active in politics, but for a different party. [ Interruption. ] She made a journey that many people have made in recent years. Unfortunately, she is dead now. She would be 110 now if she were alive. To return to the theme, it is morally right that we get this right, because these children and families are the most vulnerable among our constituents. It is also economically right, because if the children have the right provision, the parents can continue to work. Without the right provision, one parent will probably not go to work, so that has an immediate economic detriment. Allowing a child to thrive, to be included and to work in society as they get older affects the medium and long-term economic health of our society and our country, so it is both morally right and economically sensible. On that point, I will conclude: every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Accessibility at High Brooms Station · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present this petition regarding accessibility at High Brooms station. This is further to an online petition on the same matter, which has collected 610 signatures. Under the previous Government’s Access for All scheme, plans were drawn up for High Brooms featuring three new lifts and a footbridge. Now that the current Government have committed extra capital funding for transport, these plans must be implemented. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that High Brooms Station receives the funding required to improve accessibility. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Tunbridge Wells in Kent, Declares that an online petition on the matter of improving accessibility at High Brooms Station has generated a lot of interest; notes that under the previous Government's 'Access for All' scheme, plans were drawn up for High Brooms featuring three new lifts, a footbridge, and several other critical improvements; and further declares that now the current Government has committed extra capital funding for transport, these plans must be implemented. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that High Brooms Station receives the funding required to improve accessibility. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003092]

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  With its NI rises, among other measures, last year’s Budget skewed the tax burden on to small companies. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has just laid out some measures that would skew that burden towards bigger companies and multinationals. Given that the Government’s No. 1 priority is growth, could the Chief Secretary explain why we are taxing small companies over big companies?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister think it more or less likely that, as a result of the American airstrikes, Iran will get a nuclear bomb?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary whipped her Back Benchers against new clause 43 to the Crime and Policing Bill, which had cross-party support and would have criminalised the harassment of women and girls. Her Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the new clause was not necessary because the matter would be dealt with in the violence against women and girls strategy, which was meant to come out before the recess. We now hear that it is not coming out before the recess. Did Ministers misspeak at the Dispatch Box, or are they incompetent?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What about your strategy?

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  It is actually worse than just importing goods from the settlements. We are receiving tariffs from their import, so the British Government are making money from that import of goods. Would the Minister speak to that in his closing remarks?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. By reducing the funding termination agreement period from seven years to two, the Bill aims to make secure 16-to-19 academies more cost effective and adaptable, giving the Government greater flexibility to close underperforming academies or repurpose them without being locked in for such a long period. These measures are welcome, not least because of the opportunity that they offer to reinvest into community-based youth services. The Liberal Democrats believe that any freed-up funds should be directed towards making youth diversion a statutory duty, ensuring that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. We believe that that would deliver better outcomes for young people and reduce pressure on police and courts. According to the evidence, high-quality youth work has consistently been shown to help vulnerable young people escape the grip of criminal gangs. However, as we all know, youth services have suffered repeated cuts over many years, robbing young people of that support and contributing to antisocial behaviour and rising violent crime. By reinvesting savings into early intervention and support, fewer young people will fall into offending cycles, meaning fewer arrests, fewer custodial sentences and, ultimately, less need for these academies. We believe that the real long-term savings lie in prevention, rather than detention. That all being said, the Bill represents the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, a funding opportunity, and an opportunity to build safer communities, and the Liberal Democrats support it.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  As someone who is about to welcome their second child into the world—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. I am delighted to be discussing parental leave and I welcome this review. The Minister said that one objective of the review is to reset the relationship between men and women—I paraphrase—and to make that more equal. May I gently suggest that while the measures set out are necessary, they are insufficient? To get to the heart of that matter, we need to look at early years funding. When £6.12 is provided by the Government for early years provision, but providers, such as the Little Learning Tree in my constituency, say that it costs £7.50 to deliver, we have a problem. The parental leave review will not get to the heart of that matter, so will the Minister consider including the Department for Education in the review to get to the heart of equality between men and women?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is fascinating that the vast majority of the tourism businesses in West Dorset are microbusinesses. Can my hon. Friend think of a worse policy for those businesses than reducing the NI threshold to the level it was reduced to in the Budget? Can he think of a policy that would do more economic damage to the hospitality sector in his constituency?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It is as pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing the debate. Few topics are more important for the armed forces than recruitment and its partner, retention, which the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) ably articulated. I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson today but I am also a proud former soldier. I will try to encompass the whole of the armed forces in my remarks, but my natural tendency is to substitute the word “Army” because that is where I was shaped as a young man. The Army is on its knees. The cuts it faced under the previous Government were as merciless as they were reckless: 10,000 soldiers were cut from the Army, in addition to failing recruitment. The latter has continued and we have lost 2,000 members of the Army since the general election. We are left with the smallest Army since the 1790s. As we know, that is while a war is happening on NATO’s border in Ukraine. I would argue that that decline in our Army has left us dangerously exposed. In addition, only 75% of our troops are medically deployable. When we look at the size of the recruited Army, that is a deployable force of only 52,000, which is incredibly small when one considers how dangerous the world is at the moment. Depending on which figures are to be believed, Russia, by contrast, has 750,000 troops in Ukraine. There is a glaring mismatch. We saw some of that play out in conversations around the coalition of the willing, and whether we could put troops alongside allies in Ukraine. As some other hon. Members have mentioned, it is not just the UK; other European forces also suffer from smaller armies than they should have and problems with recruitment. I am sorry to repeat the words of the Minister back at him, but recently he told the Defence Committee that “more work is needed” to ensure that the UK is ready to fight an enduring war. I would contrast that with the national security strategy published yesterday, which says that we need to be ready to defend our homeland now. I encourage the Government to take away the juxtaposition of those statements and respond. We often hear people say in the media, “Do we need soldiers in an age of cyber, information and space? Perhaps we don’t need people anymore.” This is the siren call about how technology will solve our military problems, but the answer is: yes, we do need those people. There are no alternatives to having boots on the ground. It is only troops that can take and hold territory—and the last time I checked, land is where everybody lives, so that is the decisive domain in warfare. Perhaps more importantly, when we look at how dangerous the world is at the moment, ground troops are what deter, more so than any other type of force—and I for one can think of nothing scarier than a division of Northumbrians, Mackems and Geordies facing me. [ Laughter. ] That is why—from jokes to serious policy—the Liberal Democrats are proposing to reverse the Conservative cuts of 10,000 to our Army. I note that the Government hinted in the strategic defence review recently that they might increase the size of the Army at some point—I think the wording was that it would be desirable—but that this must of course fit within our financial envelope. With the new announcement of 3.5% on core defence expenditure, perhaps we could accelerate some of that increase in the size of the Army, because although the SDR was a very good document, I think it represents jam tomorrow, and I would argue that the threat is today—as I think the Government would also accept. In addition to reversing those cuts, the Liberal Democrats would focus on the recruitment problem. Although the pay increases are welcome to our hard-working armed forces—indeed, we also welcome that as Liberal Democrats —we would argue that specific recruitment and retention bonuses would help to accelerate recruitment into the forces. We therefore propose a £10,000 bonus for new recruits who complete their phase 1 and phase 2 training and then serve for two years—that is, their initial commitment. We would also pledge a further £20,000 bonus for those who have left the forces and then return. We could then get them in already trained, so to speak; they would just need to do their annual training to get back up to speed. Those two things, coupled with some of the pay increases that have come through recently, would help with the recruitment pipeline. As hon. Members have said, recruitment into our armed forces in the north-east accounts for a disproportionate share of the total, with the region contributing 7.3% of new recruits despite accounting for only 4.6% of the working-age population. It is also the region with the highest rate of per capita recruitment in the country. This reflects a deep sense of pride and patriotism, which I saw for myself when serving in Afghanistan alongside members of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who are so distinguishable by their headdress—a red hackle, in Labour colours, appropriately for today. But we cannot rely just on the north-east, nor can we ask more of our forces without giving them the support that we need, and this is where we come to retention. So many forces personnel are leaving because of the conditions they face. I would like to focus on two things. The first is an issue that we have explored repeatedly, but where things have perhaps not improved as quickly as we think they should have: bullying and harassment, particularly —almost exclusively—of female recruits and women in the armed forces. This was laid out comprehensively in the Atherton report, and recently we had the service chiefs in front of the Defence Committee, which I sit on. I questioned General Sir Roly Walker, the Chief of the General Staff, on this, and I read out to him some accounts. One woman described being pinned down and assaulted in front of a senior officer, yet nothing was done about it. That was just one example. How can we expect women to remain in the armed forces when they are not respected for the important contributions that they make? Obviously, this is a cross-party issue; no party would seek to make political capital out of it. We all agree that it is completely unacceptable. But I urge the current Government to continue to push hard on it and to make sure that the service chiefs understand that it is a political priority and a leadership issue. I will conclude now. We have discussed a plethora of issues and there have been many good suggestions from across the House today. Some of the failures reek of apathy, which I hope is being corrected. I hope that we are going forward into a new era of better funding and greater focus on some of the recruitment and retention problems that the armed forces have faced. Unless we take action, we will fail those people who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

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

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read a small quote from page 10: “We will continue to abide by the important principle—shared by NATO and its key partners—that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions are inextricably linked”. But that is not how the US views it. The Trump Administration see them as quite separate, and would prefer the United Kingdom to focus its efforts on the Euro-Atlantic. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that discrepancy?

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but does he not now regret his vote to leave, seeing as it created all of these problems for his constituents?

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister is aware that the UK is one of only three countries in Europe that does not offer a lower rate of VAT for hospitality and tourism. For example, France, Italy and Spain charge only 10% on those sectors. Will he consider lowering the rate for those sectors as part of the UK’s VAT regime to give our high streets the boost they need?

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  What is the going rate for meeting with a shadow Minister?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  There is much to like in the statement. I particularly like the reduction in energy costs of between 20% and 25%, but I would like to push the Secretary of State a little on that; so that industry can plan, when does he think those 25% reductions are going to happen?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Is it UK Government policy to pursue regime change in Iran—yes or no?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can actually give the hon. Lady a very specific time: it is 21 months to the day since this Act received Royal Assent. If the Minister would be so gracious, we might have from her either a time for commencement or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow says, a specific problem that is stopping the Act being commenced, rather than some of the more general responses we have had to date. I am doubly disappointed that although this Act was passed in a previous Parliament—expressing the unanimous will of Parliament, as it passed without a Division—it is entirely commensurate with the Labour Government’s policy to halve violence against women and girls. Harassment and violence are on a continuum and a spectrum. One of the things we are trying to do is to change the culture of men in how they act towards women; this Act is a part of that and really does contribute to the Labour Government’s priorities and manifesto. Indeed, the Minister for VAWG sat on the Public Bill Committee for the Act in 2023 and said that the Labour party would work with the then Conservative Government to ensure that the Bill passed without a Division, and so it did. The Government have signalled that they will vote against new clause 43, which has been selected for a vote tonight. When the new clause has cross-party support and the original Act had unanimous cross-party support, why will the Government vote against the new clause? It seems to me that they are voting against their own manifesto and their own commitments while in opposition. That is difficult to understand, because I think we all want the same thing. I will conclude. Implementing the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act is an important step in helping the Labour Government to achieve their own manifesto commitments. Let this not be another speech without action. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote for new clause 43.