Ukraine

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly concur. The Iranians, in particular, are global leaders in exporting terror, backing, as they do, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas. Their provision of the Shahed drone to Russia and the bombardment that the Ukrainians face lead to a terrible toll and are a terrible result.

Anyone who has seen any of the innumerable videos of first-person-view drone footage of soldiers being stalked and killed by drones cannot fail to appreciate the new reality of modern warfare. On the point made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), the last year alone has seen Russia increase its use of drones by 200%. Such a capability sea change cannot be overstated.

Four years into Putin’s three-day special military operation, Russia has sustained a staggering 1.2 million casualties, 325,000 of them fatalities. That is fast approaching the number of soldiers that we lost in the entirety of the second world war. The majority of casualties—reportedly 70% to 80%—are now caused by drones. It is reported that Russia can no longer recruit new soldiers at the rate that they are being lost, and in the past fortnight, Ukraine has liberated 300 square kilometres in its southern counter-offensive.

We are four years into this conflict, and the remarkable bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces remains undiminished. Yes, we have supported them with matériel, intelligence, rapid procurement and funding, but the human sacrifice required to win, or crucially not lose, a war of sovereignty and survival is something that we perhaps do not address enough. Fifty-five thousand Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since 2022—the equivalent of more than two thirds of our regular Army. From the contributions this afternoon, it is clear that Members on both sides of this House want an end to this conflict, and an end on Ukraine’s terms—one that does not see them acquiesce to the Russian threat that it has given so much to keep at bay.

In the broader context of European security, what comes next? There are significant lessons to be learned from the conflict in Ukraine. No war has been as visually documented at such close quarters as this. The Lessons Exploitation Centre at the Land Warfare Centre will have been busy shaping our future tactics. An example of that is the recently released outcome of NATO’s Exercise Hedgehog 2025 in Estonia, in which a team of just 10, training against experienced Ukrainian drone operators, were able to render two battalions combat-ineffective in just half a day. We are through the looking glass.

Last Saturday, the Defence Secretary wrote a piece for The Telegraph in which he explicitly stated:

“I want to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops to Ukraine–because this will mean that the war is finally over.”

But to quote Winston Churchill, that will simply be

“the end of the beginning.”

The Minister does not need me to tell him that the ceasefire will simply facilitate a reconstitution of Russian forces. To use an old adage, Russia will trade space for time. When it returns to its barracks in the Leningrad military district, it will be based only a few minutes from the Estonian border. Pskov, home of the 76th Guards Air Assault Division and the 2nd Spetsnaz Brigade, is just 35 km away.

The NATO Forward Land Forces already man the line in Estonia via Operation Cabrit—one of our ongoing commitments. The battlegroup deployed there serves as a deterrent to further Russian expansionism and belligerence. No longer just a strategic tripwire, it is now a force equipped with a capability in Project Asgard that presents a lethal recce-strike system—a force whose very presence provides Estonia with the security of the NATO umbrella; a force so vital that its ongoing presence is apparently written into Estonia’s defence strategy.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. While we want the war in Ukraine to end and, of course, for Britain to play a leading role in that, including, if appropriate, the provision of troops, does he not share my fear, when we zoom out and look at the geopolitical context, that putting the troops in Estonia in Ukraine stops us from guarding other areas on the eastern flank, and—to use military terminology—fixes most of our forces there when they might be needed elsewhere?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I hope he has not stolen a look at my speech, as I am about to come on to just that point, but I agree with him. There is potentially a trade-off to be made between putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the High North. There is a possibility that doing both those things to the sufficient level that we require may prove too much of a challenge.

We are committed in Estonia, just as we are to be committed in Ukraine. It has been reported that our commitment to a post-ceasefire force would be around 7,500 troops. That is smaller than our peak commitment in Afghanistan, but that reflects the difference in posture. While 7,500 does not sound like a lot—only circa 10% of the current Army—it does not reflect the fact that three times that number is needed to sustain the deployment. By the time of a second six-month rotation through Ukraine, we would have 7,500 who have just returned from the first tour, the second 7,500 currently doing the job and the next 7,500 training to go. That is 22,000-odd from a field army of, say, 40,000, meaning that over half the Army will be committed to manning the eastern flank deterrence line.

It was reported in The Telegraph yesterday that multiple members of the coalition of the willing have privately conceded that their contributions to the post-ceasefire peacekeeping mission depend on permission from Vladimir Putin. Could the Minister in his summing-up confirm whether every country in the coalition of the willing has committed to deploying troops to the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine alongside us?

If we include the aforementioned battlegroup in Estonia, that is another 3,000 troops operating on the same cycle. If we factor in ongoing commitments, such as NATO’s Allied Reaction Force special operations component, which we lead for the next year, the Falkland Islands Roulement Infantry Company and the Resident Infantry Battalion in Dhekelia, as well as the process of retraining and rearming for the plethora of planned new capabilities, the number of personnel quickly adds up under the stacked readiness of multiple commitments. With the Prime Minister announcing our commitment to Operation Firecrest this year with the carrier strike group, as well as the expanded Royal Marines commitment in Norway, suddenly our armed forces are on the cusp of looking overstretched, and doubly so in the event that anything else comes into scope or goes hot.

I highlight these challenges to draw out the complexity of the broader strategic issue. The only way this level of operational commitment will be feasible is if, like our European allies, we properly fund defence. That is why we have called on the Government to go faster and spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament to ensure that they can deliver the 62 recommendations in the strategic defence review that they have already pledged to deliver. But the defence investment plan itself is six months late, strongly suggesting that the plan as it stands is unaffordable. Can the Minister confirm that the plan will finally be published before the Easter recess? It is imperative that the plan addresses the growing capability gaps as the warfare spiral develops in eastern Europe.

In conclusion,

“I believe we are on a collision course with a Russia that is on a war footing, that is replenishing its lost equipment and that is re-arming fast… Putin will only take us seriously when he sees our factories producing at wartime rates. And that’s why I believe so strongly in the need to rebuild our own national arsenal and reconnect society with its Armed Forces… The urgency could not be clearer. Just ask yourself: If you knew now that our soldiers would be involved in large-scale combat operations in 2027, what would you be doing differently—and why are you not doing it?”

Those are not my words, but the words of the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roly Walker. He said them yesterday. As we mark the fourth anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s needless and tragic war, I am sure everyone in this House would agree with me when I say that I hope we are not here to mark a fifth. Slava Ukraini.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill, and it is wonderful to hear support for it on both sides of the House.

The global ocean treaty is one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time. It is currently the world’s only viable pathway towards meeting the global 30 by 30 target of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The scale of the challenge is monumental. Right now, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected—less than one penny in the pound of the global ocean. That is the gap that the treaty begins to close.

The ocean underpins everything. It feeds billions of people, absorbs about a quarter of global carbon emissions, regulates our weather and supports livelihoods across the world. However, it is under extraordinary and growing pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change. I have seen those pressures at first hand. Rowing solo across three oceans, I saw both the beauty of the high seas and the damage that we are doing to them. Out there, beyond national borders, the ocean can also feel beyond human laws. The treaty is about bringing rules, responsibility and stewardship to those waters. It also discharges one of the commitments made to me by the Government during discussions about my private Member’s Bill, the Climate and Nature Bill, and for that I thank them.

While we Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, we regret the delay. The UK helped to negotiate this agreement, and it would have been fitting had we been among the first to ratify it rather than trailing behind. I thank the campaigners who have kept up the pressure, and the colleagues throughout my party who have long championed ocean protection. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has consistently made the case for stronger high seas governance, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings).

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have spent a fair amount of time on the ocean —not rowing but sailing. When sailing across oceans in a small boat, one cannot help but see the seas of plastic, whether left by fishermen or simply thrown overboard, that are carried on currents. Does my hon. Friend think the treaty goes far enough to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our oceans?

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The treaty does not yet go far enough on plastic pollution, and I hope that the countries of the world will bring their best endeavours to achieving an international agreement in that regard. So far, sadly, those negotiations have not succeeded.

I also want to recognise the serious, constructive work of our Liberal Democrat peers. They chose not to delay ratification, but they worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Lord Teverson pressed Ministers on enforcement gaps, flags of convenience, illegal fishing and human rights at sea, reminding us that the high seas cannot be a legal vacuum for either nature or people, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer pushed strongly on plastic pollution, especially the plastic pellets that now turn up throughout the marine food chain. Those issues have not gone away, and they now form the implementation agenda.

As Lord Teverson observed during the debates in the other place, this may be one of the last major environmental agreements that we see from the United Nations for some time, given this era in which respect for international law appears to be under strain in a way that we have not seen for many decades. That makes the treaty not just important but precious. We are under a moral and existential obligation to make it work. This ratification must be the start, not the finish. If the UK wants to lead, the Government should aim to arrive at the first Conference of the Parties with a clear plan for implementation, and I suggest that the plan should include the publication of a proper implementation road map including timelines, responsibilities and funding, so that delivery does not drift.

We should back our world-leading scientific institutions, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the British Antarctic Survey and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. They should be fully supported to provide the evidence, training and technology transfers on which this treaty depends. We should strengthen enforcement using our satellite-monitoring capability and our experience in monitoring vast protected areas in the overseas territories. As a priority, we should get our own maritime house in order. We cannot in good conscience call for protection overseas while allowing destructive practices like bottom-trawling in our own MPAs. Credibility must start at home.

At a time when multilateral co-operation often feels fragile, this treaty shows what is still possible when countries work together to protect the global commons. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but future generations will not judge us on whether we ratified the treaty; they will judge us on whether the oceans are healthier because we did something. Let us match warm words with hard action, and show that Britain still leads when it matters, not just by signing agreements but by protecting the blue parts of our planet, which give us food to eat and oxygen to breathe. To quote Sir David Attenborough, who turns 100 this coming May:

“If we save the sea, we save our world.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We are deeply concerned about the escalating settler attacks and the fact that they have reached new heights, with more attacks last year than any year since the United Nations began recording such incidents. We need the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations around settlements and settler violence, but we also need to ensure that we pursue this as part of the broader peace plan process—the 20-point plan process—to build the greatest possible co-ordination around delivering not just peace for Gaza, but a two-state solution.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T5.  Reflecting on the balance of forces in Europe, both allied and Russian, will the Foreign Secretary articulate the risk that she thinks the UK is taking when it has such a small military and is committing several thousand troops, maybe tens of thousands, to Ukraine through the coalition of the willing?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, because we recognise the importance of defending our national security. I would also say to the hon. Member that Ukraine’s security is our security. The threat from Russia affects us all.

Arctic Security

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the immense co-operation between the Royal Marines Commandos and our Norwegian colleagues in the north of Norway. They briefed me on where the threats and concerns are, the way in which we need to respond to them, and the way in which the response in the north of Norway also helps with security right at the other side of the Atlantic, in the US and Canada.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Trump is certainly an unreliable and unpredictable ally, and his comments yesterday about the Norwegian leadership make us all wonder whether he is of sound mind, but what can we do? We have to deal with him.

I am sure it has not escaped the Foreign Secretary’s notice that the messaging from Congress is quite different from the messaging from the White House. Divisions were exposed in the passing of the Defence Appropriations Act before Christmas. Can she reassure me that conversations are being had, not just with the Administration but right across Congress, in which we have quite a lot of allies who are willing to support our position?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to say that there are many different perspectives across the US system, both in the Administration and in Congress. As he will know, we have always had very close engagement with all aspects of the US system, including Congress. Indeed, the House Speaker is in Parliament today.

Middle East and North Africa

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As I alluded to in my previous answer, we have wanted more aid to go into Gaza almost since the first day that we were in government. I have travelled extensively to the region and seen the restrictions on aid. I have called repeatedly for the Israelis to allow that aid in. We will continue to work to try to see that aid getting in at the pace and scale that is required. We are doing a range of things. We are part of the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre—I believe the shadow Foreign Secretary visited the CMCC and met our UK embeds within it—we have worked with the Jordanians on airdrops, we have gone to Al Arish ourselves to make these points, and the Foreign Secretary went to Jordan in November. I would not wish my hon. Friend, or anybody else in the Chamber or watching at home, to draw any conclusion other than that the British Government are committed to getting aid in as quickly as possible.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I would like to pick up the theme of increased settlements and trade, which has been mentioned across the House. Along with the concerns expressed across the House, I have a particular concern that there are currently Israeli settlements that are trading with the UK but passing their goods off as coming from Israel. As the Minister himself said, there are more favourable trading arrangements with Israel than with the settlements. Will the British Government commit to publishing segregated trade statistics by category of good and by origin of good vis-à-vis green line Israel versus the settlements?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. He raises the spectre of those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories falsely labelling their goods as being within the green line. Publishing more detail about the goods that he alludes to potentially being falsely labelled probably would not enlighten the House or anybody else on the truth of the situation. I say to all those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are producing goods in settlements that if they breach the arrangements set out very clearly for trade with the UK, they will be in breach, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate and we will take action.

Venezuela

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The UN Security Council has been discussing Venezuela today, as we would expect the UN Security Council to do on a significant issue. We have deep intelligence and security co-operation with Five Eyes countries. On this particular operation, we were not involved or informed in advance, and nor were other countries.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The US has abducted the leader of Venezuela yet the Government cannot say whether that is legal or illegal. Let us try an easier one: if the US were to abduct the premier of Greenland, would that be legal or illegal?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would say to the hon. Member that there is a continual searching for equivalence when it is really inappropriate to do so. I have made very clear our position on Greenland: the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and for the Danes, not for other countries be that the US or any other country around the world.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, on both the importance of diplomacy and the importance of BBC Persian, through which the UK makes an important contribution for Farsi speakers across the world. I have met many BBC Persian service journalists and they provide a vital service.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect, I will not comment on assessment at this stage, given the security and intelligence implications thereof.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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?

[Chris Law]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point about tariffs. I was going to come on to that, but thankfully it has now been covered, which I appreciate.

The bottom line is that, surely the rights and lives of Palestinians—as I have just stated—are of equal value to those of Ukrainians. The Minister has recognised that what the Israeli Government are doing is

“a deliberate obstacle to Palestinian statehood.”

I agree, yet the UK Government continue to refuse to recognise a Palestinian state while Israel continues to breach international law.

Talk is cheap; it is deeds that matter. Human rights and the application of international law are equal—they are not transactional. They cannot be bargained with or traded away. The UK’s policy of condemnation has completely failed, so it must now act. Failure to do so is complicity and cowardice.

Middle East

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The message I gave earlier at the Dispatch Box is in the context of a fast-moving situation and advice that was given by the US shortly before I stood up. Of course we keep our advice updated, and we are on high alert right across the region.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, from talking to Secretary of State Rubio, Vice-President Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff, that is not the objective of the United States, and of course it is not our belief that it is for us to change the regime of any country. That must be for the people themselves.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have heard the powerful interventions from my hon. Friend and many others across the House on the questions of recognition and settlement goods. The question around settlement goods is one of differentiating between Israeli goods—that is, those from within green line Israel—and those from illegal settlements. Illegal settlement goods are not eligible for the same trade provisions as those from within green line Israel. To breach that labelling requirement and so not be clear where the goods are produced is a breach of the relevant regulations.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I want to clarify some of the Minister’s earlier remarks in response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and in his previous answer. The Minister said earlier that the trade in goods from settlements attracts a higher tariff. Will he therefore confirm that the British Government, by raising tariffs and taxes on that trade, are making money out of the illegal settlements in the west bank, and does he think that is acceptable?

[Mr Falconer]

Not quite—there are trade arrangements between the UK and Israel. We consider Israel to be green line Israel; we do not consider the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the settlements within them to be part of green line Israel. We have separate arrangements with the Palestinian Authority. Goods produced in illegal settlements should be labelled as such. That is not, let me clarify, a money-making scheme for the British Government.