Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.

This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will not be supporting Lords amendment 1, because it would require renegotiation. We already have a joint commission to deal with issues that arise, and international treaty law would provide routes to termination if we were in that sort of situation, so the amendment is not necessary at all. I will come back to this question later in my speech.

If we refused to comply, others—international organisations and partners—would not ignore any provisional measures that were put in place, undermining the practical operation of the base. That is the same reason that negotiations were started under the last Government, and the treaty contains safeguards that are not decorative, but operationally vital. The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum; we will control a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles, within which nothing can be built without UK consent; and there will be a strict ban on any foreign military or security presence on the outer islands. Those are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference.

As we are in the Chamber today to consider the Lords amendments, I will go through each in turn. Lords amendment 1 would require renegotiation so that the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base. On the surface, as others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment that we need clarity. The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise, and international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears. The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 were rejected by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 4 deals with the procedure for orders under clause 6 of the Bill. It is a Government amendment; responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it provides appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement to how the Bill operates, and this House should support it.

Lords amendment 5, which deals with the publication of the total costs and methodology, is duplicative. The Government published full details of the financial arrangements on the day that the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. The methodology is clear: it uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and those figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. The amendment is not about transparency; it is about rerunning an argument we have had time and again in this House, including through I do not know how many urgent questions.

Lords amendment 6 deals with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches the treaty. This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.

[Alex Ballinger]

I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money.

Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene one more time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, I will continue.

The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts.

This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests.

Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial.

The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.

Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.

That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

[Alex Ballinger]

rose—

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.

The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.

The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always

“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,

it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.

The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is raising some good points about national security and migration. He is probably well aware that the top three nationalities that come to the UK on small boats are from conflict-affected states: Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the UK dismantling the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s conflict and migration department is the wrong decision at a time when we should be investing in conflict prevention, rather than withdrawing from it?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee. His background and expertise in this area is unrivalled, and I agree 100% with his sentiment; it is money badly spent when we do not invest in conflict prevention. The decision to cut our official development assistance from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 comes at the worst possible time. It adds to the nightmare caused by earlier cuts in 2021 and the devastating aid freezes in the United States by Trump’s White House. If we stay on this trajectory, by 2027, Britain will be spending over £6 billion less on aid than if we had simply maintained the 0.5% commitment. That is equivalent to cutting the entire education or health portfolio from our overseas spending.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Ward]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will have much more to say about that.

Thousands more are likely dead under the rubble as well. There is man-made famine. Schools, hospitals, mosques, homes—the very fabric of life is being destroyed by the Israeli Government. Almost 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank in the last two years also. I am sure that all of us here will agree that the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas were an outrage, and the Israeli hostages must be released. Attacking civilians is never justified. I know there is so much to say about the situation in Gaza in particular, which global experts increasingly assess as a genocide, and that will especially be the case given the Israeli President’s visit, and Israel’s unacceptable attack on Qatar yesterday, clearly designed to scupper any chance of a ceasefire.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel’s attack on our friend Qatar—indeed, against the very negotiators that were supposed to be discussing this ceasefire—shows that it has no interest in securing peace, and that there must be consequences for that action?

[Melanie Ward]

I agree on both points. We have to remember that Qatar was asked by the international community to undertake the hugely important role that it plays in trying to bring about peace and a ceasefire through negotiations. The focus of today’s debate, however, is humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the ways that aid workers are increasingly being prevented from doing their job, which is to serve civilians in need.

Aid workers serve humanity. When they are prevented from doing their jobs, it is humanity that suffers. In the aftermath of the atrocities of world war two, the main bodies of international humanitarian law were drawn up—what are often called the “laws of war”. Part of their purpose is to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach those in need, and that aid workers can do their jobs safely, in line with humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

BBC Monitoring Service

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task.

I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print.

The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that:

“The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.

The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million.

The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”—

as he then was, for the first time—

“that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.”

That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Member is delivering an excellent speech. As the Defence Committee did in 2016, the Foreign Affairs Committee is now conducting an inquiry into disinformation, which covers many of the same areas that he discusses. Does he agree that the increasing spread of disinformation, increasingly in countries that are non-English-speaking but have a real geopolitical significance for the UK, makes the BBC Monitoring service even more important today than it was in 2016?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I agree entirely, and before I give way for the next intervention, I will read what I had just been about to say.

The report’s main conclusion was that the Government should reinstate their previous model of funding BBC Monitoring through a ringfenced grant in aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee. As a non-partisan, cross-party body, I doubt if today’s Defence Committee would take a radically different view. Indeed, we have just heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee representative that that view still has a great deal of validity.

Middle East

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have to tell him that it demeans his argument when he personalises it in the way that he does. It is unbecoming, and not something the House expects, particularly of its more senior Members.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

We have seen again images of children dying of starvation and malnutrition, and this comes after months of warnings from the UN system about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of more aid, but we know that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation will not allow in more UK aid. He said to me 10 days ago at the Foreign Affairs Committee that if there was not a ceasefire, he would consider further action against Israel. As we have seen, the Israelis responded to the calls for a ceasefire by launching a new offensive in Deir al-Balah. What further actions will we take to try to end this catastrophic situation?

[Mr Lammy]

We have actually been able to get in some further aid with the World Food Programme, and of course that is important. It is also right to say that, with our funding of UK-Med, we have been able to save lives. Of course, we must endeavour every single day to make the humanitarian situation better.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for organising this important debate.

The catastrophic situation in Gaza has meant that much of the media’s attention has been on the death and destruction there, but the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate. I was there with the Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of months ago, and we visited Bedouin communities and families in the Jordan valley, not far away from the Dead sea. The situation was dire. We saw with our own eyes a mosque that had recently been burned and videos of their schools being attacked by extremist Israeli settlers, and we heard stories of their livestock being stolen and taken away by people from settler outposts. It was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and force people from their land.

Shortly before we arrived, we heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned, about the situation in Jenin, where Israeli used tanks for the first time in the west bank to forcibly displace the population there. Thousands are still yet to return to their homes. I heard stories of a two-year-old girl and a 73-year-old man who were killed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin; just as in Gaza, the most vulnerable are the victims of these attempts.

Other hon. Members have mentioned Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement that the legalisation of settlements is a deliberate policy to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. One of the 22 settlements that was legalised only a couple of months ago was the illegal outpost that we saw overlooking the village that we visited. The one settler based there was the man who had been stealing livestock from villages. His clearly illegal actions incurred no consequences from the Israeli security forces; indeed, they have now been rewarded by Israel through the legalisation of that settlement.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Alongside the UK condemning these actions, does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate for practical measures, such as banning trade in settlement goods, to be introduced?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes—there are a number of things we should be doing. Others have spoken about the issues I meant to cover, so I will come straight to the point: I think is appropriate to have a response from the Government to the ICJ ruling. We have been waiting more than a year for that. It would be great to hear from the Minister when that will be coming. We should absolutely ban trade with the settlements. It is great that we have marking and labelling of goods, but it does not go far enough. We have heard directly from the Israeli Government that the settlements are being used as a tool to ensure that there is no Palestinian state in the future. A two-state solution is the UK Government’s goal, so we need to respond to that.

Finally, President Macron will visit the UK next week on a state visit. That is an excellent opportunity for our two countries to get together. I know the King has been to Bethlehem, and he has spoken about his sympathy for the Palestinian people. Maybe that visit is an opportunity, given Macron’s aspirations, to discuss the issue and see how we can work together to ensure a two-state solution.

Middle East

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

They did not seek that advice.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his measured approach to this crisis. In past rounds of violence, Iran has often leaned on its proxies to conduct retaliation. They include the Houthis of Yemen, who until recently had been attacking UK and international shipping in the Red sea. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect UK shipping in that area and to keep safe the trade routes that are so vital for our country?

[Mr Lammy]

Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have been considerably degraded over this period. The Houthis have been held back but are still active in the Red sea. We will do all we can, working with partners, to protect our shipping routes. We have been crystal clear to the Iranian regime about the strait of Hormuz in particular.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I of course hear the voice of all parliamentarians who have spoken today, and on the many other occasions when we have had to discuss these issues. Like other Members, the hon. Gentleman presses me on one of many lifesaving items that are not currently going into the strip in the volumes required. They include medical provision, baby food, and the basic nutrition to deal with the famine that the IPC—Integrated Food Security Phase Classification—report warns all those in Gaza are at risk of. There is an urgent need for all such items to get in, and I assure him that we press that point.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I welcome the sanctions against extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, whose dehumanising rhetoric has contributed to the land grabbing on the west bank and the destructive situation we see in Gaza. I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for co-ordinating internationally on this, because together our actions are more powerful. Will he also co-ordinate on the devastating humanitarian situation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and private military contractors? We see civilians walking miles to get food; indeed, some of them are being killed by the Israel Defence Forces while simply queuing to get a meal, despite the state they are in. Will he co-ordinate with his international partners to apply pressure, and to challenge this illegal and cruel mechanism, and what steps will he take next week to ensure that the UK recognises the Palestinian state?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend rightly points to the limitations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; its model has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the scale required. We have co-ordinated with our partners in the way that I have described. Next week, with Egypt, we will co-chair a working group on the reconstruction of Gaza, and I assure him, as I have assured other Members, that we will continue to work with our international partners on these questions until the situation improves.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in a cross-party spirit. He brings great authority and experience to these matters. He knows that, as a P5 nation, we are talking to our French counterparts about the way forward as we head to their conference next month. We are also talking to Saudi Arabia, which is jointly hosting that conference. I recognise why he raises these issues, particularly in relation to children, in the manner in which he does.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for these essential actions: the sanctions on extremist settlers and the suspension of our trade negotiations with Israel. It is important that Israel sees that its allies will not stand by while it continues to forcibly displace Palestinians and block aid. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what further discussions he has had with the EU on suspending the EU-Israel association agreement, so that we can put further pressure on Israel to stop the brutalisation of Palestinians in Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that I was invited to the EU Foreign Ministers’ informal meeting just under two weeks ago, at which these issues were discussed, and I was able to discuss these issues with EU High Representative Kaja Kallas just yesterday.

Middle East Update

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It has now been more than two months since Israel blocked food and aid getting into Gaza. Aid agencies tell us that 95% of their work has been stopped or drastically reduced because of the blockade. I welcome the Minister’s comments condemning these appalling actions, but we are now facing a total collapse of the aid system in Gaza. Is it not time now to go further than words and take action against these extremist Ministers who are advocating for this starvation policy?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is a former aid worker. He understands how these things work, and his warnings about the scale of risk for the humanitarian system, which is supporting so many Palestinian lives, are well made. I will not rehearse the comments I have made.