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.

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.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks important questions about aid access and the nature of aid delivery. Let me be clear: the UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or put vulnerable people at risk. The obligations under international humanitarian law and international law more broadly are clear, and they fall on Israel as the occupying power. It must abide by them.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Very few issues in politics, particularly international politics, are black or white, but this is one such issue. The Israeli Government are using collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population, which is illegal under international law and contravenes the Geneva conventions, to which Israel is party. Does the Minister think that the British Government have lost their moral and legal compass in continuing their tacit support for Israel?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out some of what the Government have done, and I could continue doing so for some time. Let me be clear. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the absolutely appalling nature of any attempt to weaponise aid and use incendiary language, which are clearly breaches of international obligations. We have condemned from the Dispatch Box much of that language, some of which was repeated by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). I take this opportunity to say again that the British Government absolutely condemn that inflammatory language. We will continue to do so, and to make our views known to the Israeli Government, in the most forceful possible way.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This is perhaps a question for the Minister for the Armed Forces, who I notice is also on the Front Bench. On the buffer zone, can the Minister state categorically that it will be sufficiently wide to protect all the capabilities on the base?

[Stephen Doughty]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to support Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am proud that the British people across our country have opened their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s brutal war. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has helped more than 160,000 Ukrainians to find refuge here, and since 4 February, Ukrainian refugees can apply to remain for an additional 18 months while continuing to receive vital support.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

As the Foreign Secretary knows, we have substantial engagement with, and deployment to, Estonia. Talk of peace in Ukraine is of course welcome and Britain should play its role in supporting that peace, but does he accept that any deployment of British troops to Ukraine increases the risk to the UK and its forces in Estonia?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman should know that the UK’s commitment to the security of Estonia is iron-clad, and made real by our NATO forward land forces deployment. Discussions regarding how our military can support Ukraine’s future security arrangements are ongoing, including with NATO allies and Secretary-General Rutte. Part of the discussion for countries committed to the coalition of the willing is about ensuring that those countries on the frontline are not left without adequate support. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to work with our partners. My French counterpart Minister Haddad and I convened our Quint partners and the EU institutions on Friday for a joint meeting; Minister Haddad was visiting London and we took the initiative to meet our partners, because we were deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia. We have also been engaging with those in the region, including Serbia and Croatia. I, along with the special representative, the Foreign Secretary and others, will continue to do so.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

One detects the hand of Russia here, much as one does across the entire periphery of Europe, from the High North, Ukraine, the Balkans and the Caucasus, which the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned, to the Sahel, the Maghreb and Libya, right over to the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Will the Minister describe the British strategy for rolling back Russian destabilisation across the entire periphery of Europe?

[Mark Pritchard]

In 30 seconds!

UK-China Relations

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he is more on top of the statistics than I am.

With China being a member of the G20 and the UN Security Council, and the third-largest trading partner for the UK—if one includes Hong Kong—it is entirely logical that the Government should aspire to a more stable and consistent relationship. To do anything different would not be in the UK’s national interests.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

There are well-documented links between Russia and China. It is publicised and well-known that China buys Russia’s oil and all the rest of it. We are fighting Russia at the moment in Europe; it is our primary adversary. Why on earth would we want to have a close and stable relationship with China?

[Tony Vaughan]

As I said, I am not advocating for China; I am saying that, as the third-largest trading partner with Hong Kong, we cannot pretend that it does not exist. We cannot pretend that there is no role for building dialogue and engagement. The reality is that, given the way the tectonic plates of global affairs are moving, it is in China’s interests to have a stable Europe. Who else will buy its electric cars, for example? There is an evolution in the way we should look at these things, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point.

Over the last 14 years, British foreign policy towards China resembled a rollercoaster. We had the golden era under the Cameron Government, when President Xi enjoyed a state visit and, as the Foreign Secretary recently reminded us, had a beer in a pub with the Prime Minister. We had the May Government’s justified scepticism about China General Nuclear Power Corporation’s involvement in Hinkley, and then the Johnson Government’s confused China policy, culminating in Liz Truss’s cold war 2.0-style policy. No serious nation should aim to have a bilateral relationship with the world’s second-largest economy that resembles a fairground ride. The Chancellor’s trip to China for the economic and financial dialogue in January, concluding agreements of up to £1 billion for the UK economy over five years, is an example of how taking a grown-up relationship to China is in our national interest.

Ukraine

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I was at the Munich security conference and it became clear while talking with our European allies that they no longer fully trust the article 5 security guarantee. Put simply, they do not trust the Americans. Conversations naturally turned to what collective defence looks like in Europe without the Americans. Last night, Chancellor-elect Merz said that conversations are happening at the highest levels on precisely that. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on whether the UK is included in those conversations and on their content?

[Mr Lammy]

NATO has stood the test of time as the greatest modern-day alliance that we have ever seen, and has been strengthened further following the joining of Sweden and Finland. Of course there is a debate in Europe—there is a debate about burden sharing, there is a debate about burden shifting, and there are some who think that there is a debate about burden dumping—but NATO is a great alliance, and we work across that alliance. Successive United States Presidents, from Roosevelt to Obama and, of course, President Trump, have rightly said that Europe must do more, and that is what we now have to do.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead of himself somewhat. We continue to support Ukraine with every military effort. That is going on now, and in a sense that is the reference he is making. I have indicated an irreversible pathway to NATO, as we agreed back in September. This is not article 5.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and I thank the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues for working on the partnership. As he will know, the House, in its first debate of the year, called on the Government to investigate how we might seize Russian assets. Notwithstanding his statements about the ongoing conversations and the sensitivities, will he update the House on when he will be able to report back to us on that?

[Mr Lammy]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the most sensitive of times. We all recognise that this is a critical year for Ukraine, and further funds will need to be found. I am pleased to see that the $50 billion loan through the G7 will eventually be getting into Ukrainian coffers, but there is more to do, and the conversations are live at this point in time.

Northern Gaza

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have spoken a little bit about some of the direct advocacy with the Israeli Government conducted by Ministers. That advocacy is also conducted by the special envoy, to whom the shadow Foreign Secretary referred. We are clear at every level of the urgency of the situation in northern Gaza, and we will continue to have it in our minds each and every day until the situation stabilises. It must stabilise both with adequate aid and medical assistance, and with dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinians.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The case for further British action to protect Gazan civilians is unanswerable. Is the Government’s moral integrity being damaged by their inaction?

[Mr Falconer]

Perhaps the hon. Member could be a bit clearer about what further action this Government could be taking to try to protect Palestinian civilians. We are raising these issues—

[Mike Martin]

Sanctions, arms sales, recognition of a Palestinian state—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You do not get two bites of the cherry.