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.

USAID Funding Pause

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing the debate. The International Development Committee is due in a couple of weeks—if our visas are approved—to go to the US and have some of these discussions. It will be interesting to see what is said. I do not know whether I need to declare this as an interest, but I am the Labour party representative on the Progressive Alliance; our sister party is the Democratic party, and I campaigned for it in the 2012 election. I think it is obvious that my view is that we should not have the current US Administration, and their decision to slash the US aid budget was profound and devastating.

Turning to the UK context, as someone who has spent their entire career in the charity sector, I was heartbroken by the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, but it is important for the record to lay out some of the context for that decision. We inherited a horrific economy, the majority of the aid budget—a huge amount of that money—was going on asylum spend in hotels, and we faced a world in which Ukraine had been invaded by Putin and his forces. While I regret the decision to cut aid, it was taken in that terrible context, and because of the vital need to increase defence spending to 2.5%.

Why was the economy in such a state? It was because of the devastating Truss mini-Budget. Aid had already been reduced to 0.5% because of the decision that Sunak had taken, and Boris Johnson had abolished a world-leading Government Department. In addition, why did Russia invade? It was because—I should say that I do not mean this as a criticism of the last Government—the west collectively failed to stand up to Putin. We allowed him and Assad to do what they wanted in Syria; we took no action when Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people. Putin invaded Crimea with near impunity in 2014, and of course we had attacks on UK soil, including the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will not, because I want to make a point; I find the moralising tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a bit much. The reason the last Government were able to do what they did—slashing the aid budget, abolishing the Department for International Development and wrecking the economy—was that we have never had a weaker Opposition than we did when the hard left was sadly in charge of my party. Putin was emboldened, in part, by the hard left’s constant appeasement and apologism for the things he was doing, their downplaying of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and their suggestion that we send the sample from Salisbury back to Putin to test whether or not he was responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor]

No, I will not, because I find the moralising tone completely infuriating. Having put that on record, I turn to the matter at hand: the horrible situation that we are in. I note with respect that other hon. Members have mentioned causes that they deeply care about, and I care about those causes—

[Mike Martin]

On geopolitics, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will.

[Mike Martin]

If we put aside the internecine warfare of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about a retreat from the world. Retreating from the world as the west, the UK or the US, opens the door to creating more problems, and then we retreat further. Would he argue that that is what we are doing—vacating the field to our opponents?

[David Taylor]

I do not believe that is the case, because I believe the Minister is going to set out the ways in which we are still taking our place on the world stage, but I hear the hon. Member’s concern.

Hon. Members in this Chamber have passionately advocated for causes that they care deeply about. I respect that, especially the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes and his passionate plea for WASH. I could talk about a number of causes important to me, but what is most important is that we increase the size of the pie. For that reason, I have been working constructively with other Members of the House to put suggestions to the Government for how, given the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, we could look at other forms of development finance.

In the interests of time, I will not go over the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made about asylum seekers, remittances, special drawing rights, the exchange equalisation account and debt relief, but I will add to that list the need to release the Chelsea money as soon as possible. The Government announced recently that they are looking to take further action against Roman Abramovich. If that money is released into Ukraine, given that we have essentially said that we will protect aid spending in Ukraine, I hope that additional money can replace official development assistance going in, so that that ODA money can then support programmes in other countries.

We also have an issue with British International Investment. To be clear, BII does good things, but there is no need for additional capitalisation out of the 0.3% that we have, given that investments in assets can be realised. Finally, I highlight the international finance facility for immunisation, which is a way to leverage extra funding. We are urging the Government to look at other ways to do that in other contexts. There is already an international finance facility for education, and by using such facilities we can leverage funds times 10. Given the various summits that are coming up, including the financing for development conference that my hon. Friend mentioned, I urge the Government to look at those options, and to think innovatively about the additional finance that we can leverage to help to support the poorest people in the world.

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.