NATO and the High Arctic

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on NATO and the High Arctic.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. There are slightly fewer people here than I was expecting—I think we have a clash with the Ministry of Defence estimates debate—which is a bit of a shame, but I am delighted to see that we have a brace of bootnecks in the debate. I was hoping to see the Minister for the Armed Forces joining us—then we would be nearly a fire team. I note that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) has just told me he has never been to Norway and therefore is not a proper bootneck. The Minister for the Armed Forces went earlier this year, so maybe he has had his fill of the ice-breaking drills.

This debate is happening at the same time as the war in the middle east, which reinforces not only the importance of naval assets, as we see the impact of the closure of the strait of Hormuz on our economy at home, but the importance of naval air defence. I am pleased that HMS Dragon will be joining the US taskforce in the Mediterranean very soon.

The importance of the Navy cannot be overstated in the middle east, but it is even more important in the High North. That is because the High North is central to the UK’s security, to its economic resilience and to NATO’s ability to deter Russia. If we get our posture wrong, we do not just lose influence in the polar region; we take risks in the north Atlantic, take risks with our critical national infrastructure and risk our ability to reinforce our allies during a crisis.

I will make three points in the debate today: why the High Arctic matters, what has changed in the recent past, and what NATO and the UK should do about it. The High Arctic matters because climate change is changing the geography. Receding ice is extending operating seasons, opening access and drawing in more strategic interest in shipping, minerals and energy. Those create opportunities for states bordering the Arctic, but they also create risks. More access means more traffic. More traffic means more accidents and more opportunities for coercion, especially in a region with vast distances and limited infrastructure.

The Arctic is becoming busier and more contested at the same time. Undersea competition is now a frontline issue. Our economy relies on seabed infrastructure for fibre-optic communications, power cables and gas pipelines. A single major incident with this critical undersea infrastructure can cause disruption beyond the immediate area.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for leading a debate on one of the most important security and defence issues that we face. I was in Estonia at the start of January, in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia. I met members of its military, as well as the British troops in Estonia, to talk about the importance of the High North and Arctic. Does he agree that partnerships such as the joint expeditionary force and other work being done in the area are vital to the protection of the undersea cables that he correctly highlighted? It is important that we look for those effective models to defend the High North and the Arctic.

[Alex Ballinger]

I absolutely agree that the JEF is a vital alliance for our operations in the High North. I met the Estonian ambassador only a couple of weeks ago, and we were pleased to discuss opportunities for co-operation, in addition to the UK forces that are based in Estonia, as part of deterring the Russian threat to that part of the world.

Importantly, the High Arctic is a top priority for Moscow strategically, militarily and economically. Russia has been building up its military presence, and it is not subtle about it. The northern fleet is modernising: it has a more capable navy and increasingly active submarine operations, and it focuses on controlling access to the European High North. We should be clear about what that means for the UK. Russia’s sea-based nuclear forces are concentrated around the Kola peninsula, and the High North is central to its nuclear deterrent strategy. That raises the stakes for NATO.

The Royal Navy has also seen a 30% increase in Russian vessels threatening UK waters over the past two years. Russia’s navy is increasingly capable and willing to test our defences from the High North. Russia wants to exploit the Arctic for more than military leverage; it wants to dominate access to sea routes and mineral resources. For Russia, this is about economics and security, which is why we cannot treat Arctic competition as “just defence”.

Recently, the big change we have seen in this region is what is happening in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion has transformed European security, and the Arctic is a part of that. Two Arctic countries, Finland and Sweden, joined NATO because they concluded that, in the context of Ukraine, neutrality no longer protected them. As a result, every Arctic country except Russia is now a NATO ally. That strengthens NATO’s hand, but it means that NATO’s northern responsibilities have expanded.

The second development is Greenland. We all saw Trump’s threats and rhetoric, which have thankfully receded. I am pleased that European countries were united in saying that Greenland’s sovereignty should not be a bargaining chip.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I was fortunate to visit Nuuk in Greenland with the APPG for Greenland—of course, we discussed NATO and Trump. It is important for us to remember that the 1951 agreement between the USA and the Kingdom of Denmark gave the US rights of access to military defence. When it comes to what the United Kingdom could be doing for Greenland to develop what will none the less be geo-significant in the future, surely it is time that we should call for a consulate for the United Kingdom in Greenland.

[Alex Ballinger]

The Foreign Affairs Committee is going to Greenland in a couple of weeks. We hope to meet the Foreign Minister of Denmark, among other leaders of the Greenlanders, and that sounds like the kind of sensible suggestion that we should be talking about.

Certainly, there are lots of opportunities for NATO to base troops in Greenland already; we did not need a change in sovereignty to do that. I am pleased that that has fallen off the radar. It is concerning that Trump’s interest in Greenland is not a one-off. The US security strategy is explicit that the Arctic is becoming more important to America and to American national security, whether it is because of Russia, China, geography or critical minerals. We should not pretend that this was just a single passing storm.

In the Arctic, NATO is responding, but we need to be honest about the scale of the task. With the Arctic sentry, the alliance is trying to pull together a more coherent posture in the High North, with better visibility, better co-ordination and a clearer framework for operating in the sea, air, space and undersea environments.

We should also underline the importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. That strategic choke point is vital to NATO. It affects how Russia can move submarines into the wider Arctic, it affects the security of reinforcement routes in a crisis and it sits alongside the undersea infrastructure that we rely on every day.

I will raise the joint expeditionary force, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) raised earlier. The UK-led JEF has real value in this part of the world; it is practical, northern-focused and moves faster than the full NATO machine in the early stages of a crisis. That is exactly the sort of framework we should use to build readiness, interoperability and credibility.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The hon. and gallant Member is making a hoofing speech. He mentioned the Greenland-Iceland gap. We have committed to Operation Firecrest later this year, which will see the carrier strike group go to the High North as a deterrent against the Russian northern fleet breaking out of the Kola peninsula and moving across the Barents sea and into the open ocean. With the emergence of the conflict in the middle east, a potential commitment to a post-conflict force in Ukraine, a commitment to troops in Norway and Operation Firecrest, does he share my concern that we may have to make some very difficult decisions about how much capability we are able to deploy to ensure that our interests are looked after across all those fronts?

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Our naval capability has sadly diminished; we have fewer destroyers and frigates than we used to, and we are rightly deploying some of those to the Mediterranean and the middle east at the moment.

There will have to be hard choices as we approach that timescale. I think those will depend on the situation in the middle east at that point, but maybe the Minister can address that in her remarks. Later in my speech, I will raise what we might want to do about capability. It is important that NATO is backed by increased capability regarding ships, aircraft, sensors, munitions, trained people and deployable logistics; otherwise, our response will fall short.

The First Sea Lord has made the case for UK action in the High North repeatedly. In recent speeches, he has said that the High North is a critical area, that Russia’s submarine force is a huge concern and that we need more warfighting readiness now, not a peacetime posture. He has also said that

“the advantage that we have enjoyed in the Atlantic since the end of the Second World War is at risk”

unless we take action soon.

I want to ask the Minister whether we are resourcing this crucial area sufficiently. We continue to retire Type 23 frigates—anti-submarine ships. Five have retired since 2021, including HMS Lancaster most recently, but are we retiring them before replacements are ready? We have the Type 31 programme coming on soon, but it would be nice to have reassurance on the timelines and the risk that we are taking if there are gaps. If we are relying on future ships for future threats, we need confidence that they will arrive before the threat does.

We cannot talk about the High North without talking about the vital contribution of the Royal Marines—our Arctic-trained troops—who are ready to operate alongside Norwegian, Dutch and other forces. That is a genuine strength, but cold weather expertise must be backed by enablers—lift, sustainment and surveillance assets.

That brings me to the most important point: the defence investment plan. We can announce deployments, launch missions and make speeches about the High North, but if we do not publish a clear investment plan that is costed and credible, our adversaries will conclude that the UK strategy is stronger in rhetoric than in reality. The Chairs of the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have warned that delay sends damaging signals to our adversaries, and they are right. We are serious about the Arctic. We need serious choices, and we need them now, not in a year’s time.

There is a practical, day-to-day test. We are facing concurrent pressures in other theatres, including recent deployments to the middle east. The question is not whether we can deploy ships to other regions on paper; it is whether we can do it without hollowing out our commitments to other parts of the world.

I want to put three questions to the Minister. First, when will the defence investment plan be published? Secondly, do we have sufficient ships that are suitable and available to operate credibly in the north Atlantic and respond to the serious crisis in the middle east at the same time? Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking bilaterally and through NATO to reassure Denmark and strengthen stability around Greenland while making it clear that sovereignty is not negotiable and that influence operations will be resisted?

The High Arctic is becoming a sharper edge of competition. Climate change is opening access, Russia is militarising, undersea vulnerability is rising and NATO is adapting. The UK has a choice. We can treat this as a niche theatre and muddle through, or we can treat it as what it is: a direct test of our seriousness as a north Atlantic power. Deterrence is built on credibility, credibility is built on capability, and capability requires investment. That is why the defence investment plan and ship availability matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

That is the focus we need to have. Climate change is affecting the world. We might find ourselves in a slightly different geographical position in a short time. The right hon. Lady has illustrated that to our advantage.

The Greenland-Iceland-UK gap remains vital for monitoring submarine activity. I can never understand how anybody can get into a submarine; it is too claustrophobic for me, but I admire those who do, as they play a vital role in the defence of this great nation. It is no secret that Russia has expanded its Arctic military footprint, which may be what Trump is looking towards. We need to be aware of Russia’s input, especially its submarine operations, air bases and missile systems. The Arctic region is a key domain for undersea infrastructure. Protecting the integrity of UK security is a major priority. NATO allies must remain as a cornerstone of support in doing that.

When we focus on the importance of where we are, we support the policies that strengthen deterrence rather than encourage confrontation. I cannot remember which one, but a US President said:

“Speak softly but carry a big stick.”

That reminds us that we must have a deterrent—the nuclear power and the submarines and the strength of the Army—to persuade others not to go to war. That is the ultimate goal we all try to achieve. We must also maintain readiness to respond to threats and ensure that military deployments to Norway and the north Atlantic are exercised and fully trained. Again, we see commitment from the British Army and NATO, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Poland. Those troops are the best.

The hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned the Marines, and there are none better. When I was a wee boy, I was always saying, “I am going to be a Royal Marine.” As an eight-year-old, that was my big ambition. It obviously never happened, but I did serve part time in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the Royal Artillery. It was a slightly different role and not as exciting as the Marines—it never could be—but it was an incredible role.

We often have discussions around defence spending. A proper budget is needed to perfect intelligence and surveillance of the High Arctic. In strategic terms, sea lanes and undersea cables are vital. I asked the Minister a question over recess, and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy came to the main Chamber maybe six or eight weeks ago and referred to undersea cables. In my question to the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), I asked about the undersea cables that come across the North sea, down to England and across to Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a soft belly. Do we have a role to play in securing the undersea cables that go from there across the Atlantic as well? Of course, the Republic of Ireland does not have the Royal Navy, the Army or the personnel that we have. Are there discussions, or is there a relationship or a defensive agreement, between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the undersea cables that go across the Atlantic are protected? The Chair of the Select Committee was unable to confirm that. That is not a criticism; I am just saying that I asked a question and the answer could not be given.

The undersea cables and the Arctic’s stability affect trade, energy and global security. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and the United States have shared interests in terms of the Arctic region. Of course, President Trump has made his opinions clear in relation to Greenland, but close co-operation ensures that NATO can respond rapidly to threats, particularly from Russia. The United States, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned, has bases in Greenland. It has feet on the ground and it is building up to using that footprint as a protection or a launchpad. It is important that we have that relationship with the United States.

To conclude, I stand firmly for a united NATO, a credible deterrent to aggression and robust investment in our armed forces to ensure they are equipped for operations in the High Arctic. We have an enduring partnership with the United States of America and we must strengthen our ability to defend vital waters and airspace. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of ships being built for the Royal Navy to enhance its position. I know the Government are giving everything to enhance investment—that is never in doubt—but maybe the Minister could tell us about their commitment to the Royal Navy, which is clearly needed.

I say this with incredible respect. For 10 days our base in Cyprus was potentially under attack. My comment is not an attack on anybody, but why on earth did we not send a ship to protect Cyprus 10 days ago? It niggles me whenever we see the French and the Germans giving us protection.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am sure the Minister will respond, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are allies of ours in the Mediterranean as well, including a large American flotilla. It is appropriate for us to work closely with other air defence assets. The single ship that we have sent would not have changed the situation entirely; there are other assets out there as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The point I am trying to make is that there is a perception across the world that the United Kingdom, who ruled the waves 300 years ago or whenever it was, has not got a ship that it can send. That sends a message. The hon. Gentleman is right about working with our allies. We cannot fight a war on our own any more; we have to do it collectively, but there is something that niggles me whenever I recognise that. It is not meant to be an attack on anybody; I am just making the point that we need to be seen to be proactive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

I am grateful for the excellent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and, of course, the Minister.

I think this is the first debate I have been in where there has been almost unanimous agreement across the piece about the importance of Arctic security, outrage at the position the Americans took on Greenland, and agreement on the necessary steps we need to take to reinforce the capability of our troops. I am also grateful to have heard the Royal Marines being spoken about so much in this Chamber—we need that to continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on NATO and the High Arctic.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Unlike the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I am very concerned that the leader of Reform UK has gone on television today to reject sending British troops to Ukraine to help secure a sustainable peace—

[Richard Tice]

That is not what he said.

[Alex Ballinger]

That is exactly what he said. Does the Secretary of State agree that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) should be ashamed, because we owe so much to the Ukrainian people who have fought so hard to secure democracy in Europe, and that this shows for real how much closer the leader of Reform is to Putin’s priorities than to the priorities of the UK?

[Richard Tice]

You are inadvertently misleading the House—

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I have been really clear: I have been working with veterans across the whole UK, with Northern Ireland and with the commissioners to ensure that the protections that we put in place are written into legislation and are well thought-through, so that the process does not become the punishment. People have said in Northern Ireland that the prospects of prosecution are vanishingly small. We must also ensure that other groups, such as families who lost loved ones in the troubles, get truth, reconciliation and justice, but in doing so, we must absolutely protect our veterans. We will put six protections in place; we will get five of them straight into the Bill, and written into law. We are working through the sixth one, a protocol to ensure no cold calling. It will ensure that anybody who is required to give evidence remotely, rather than by going to Northern Ireland, is engaged with by either the MOD or a regimental association. The main aim of involving our veterans was for them to help me articulate how we can stop this process from being wielded as a punishment against those who served our country so valiantly and honourably in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Minister has been too modest; he mentioned the September figures for the increase in recruitment, but the December figures were released just a couple of days ago, and they show a 20% increase in recruitment to the armed forces over the last year. Some 2,170 additional personnel were recruited in the year before. Despite the accusations from the Conservatives, might that be because of the two above-inflation pay rises that this Government have granted our personnel? Might it be because of the £9 billion increase for armed forces housing, after it was left in a decrepit state by the last Government? Might it be because of the 2.6% of GDP that we are investing in the military? That figure was never reached in the 14 years of the last Conservative Government.

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his list. This Government have come into power and put in place a very clear, concise programme to increase recruitment and retention. There is a list: there is the armed forces discovery scheme, zig-zag careers, and the cyber direct entry scheme; the first cohort graduated in November ’25. We are scrapping a huge amount of red tape left by the last Government. If somebody had athlete’s foot as a child, they could not join the military, and people needed multiple sets of medical records. That was ridiculous. We also have financial retention incentives. [Interruption.] Individuals on the Conservative Benches can say that they know, but they did nothing about it; I lived it. We have done a single living accommodation review, and we have a Christmas travel payment. [Interruption.] There are great comments coming from the Opposition, but they did nothing about it. We have done it, and as a result we see a 13% increase in recruitment, and a reduction in outflow by 8% for the first time in 14 years.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member is right that we need to end this saga. It has gone on for too long, and I am not happy with any of our equipment being used by our service personnel if it is not safe. Since I became a Minister, I have taken a number of decisions to pause the use of certain equipment because I had safety concerns about it. I did so again with Ajax, because the safety of our people is a priority for me. That is something I feel strongly, as a representative of a military city and coming from a military family. It is too early, until I see the reports, to look at what may happen next, but I reassure him that when we get to that stage, we will report to the House.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Ajax vehicle was ordered in 2014, and was due to be delivered in 2017. It has now been delivered eight years late, in a state of service that is completely unusable by our personnel. This is a catastrophic failure by MOD procurement. As we increase spending as we respond to the war in Ukraine, how is the Minister ensuring that MOD procurement is fit for purpose, so that we do not have another disaster like this?

[Luke Pollard]

It is important that we look at what in particular happened with Ajax and the Ajax family of vehicles, to see what lessons we need to learn and what decisions we need to take as a result. However, the wider point that my hon. Friend raises about defence reform is valid. Defence procurement takes too long. It is the system that we inherited in 2024. It is too expensive, and it does not allow for spiral development in the way it needs to. The procurement of Ajax was a novel form, where the platform was procured and brought into service, with iterations then retrofitted on to each platform. I am looking at whether that model and that type of procurement is right for the platforms we are looking to buy.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

In a moment. I will come to the hon. Gentleman—he should not worry.

A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK. It would impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, and impair our ability to ensure access to the base by air and sea, to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about the important capabilities of this vital US-UK base. Does he agree that it would be dangerous and counterproductive to put those capabilities at any risk—certainly if that could have happened in a matter of weeks or months?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree, and it is precisely the reason why the Conservative Government started the negotiations in the first place. You do not accidentally rock up one day to the Foreign Office and decide to start international negotiations; you do so because there is a clear risk to the future of the military base. That is why the Conservatives started the negotiations, why they had 11 rounds of negotiations, and why we had to conclude the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Foreign Office and the Government published the Government’s legal position when the treaty was laid. That assessment says:

“The longstanding legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty”

in any future sovereignty litigation. That important and long-standing view predates this Government. Again, it was one of the reasons why the Conservative Government began the negotiations and held 11 rounds.

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the Minister not think it is the height of hypocrisy for those in the last Government, who negotiated 85% of this treaty over 11 rounds, to wait until they were in opposition to make these claims, none of which they made during their negotiations?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It must be quite a freeing experience, because we now know that nearly every single legacy Tory MP during the last Government—whose Ministers started the negotiations, negotiated a deal, and made statements and answered questions in this House—were not actually supporting their Front Benchers, which is what we saw, but were deeply upset with the Conservative Government. If that is their genuine position, not just their political position now, they should have raised those concerns with the Foreign Secretary at the time. They should have been clear about it, but I believe that not many of them did so, and that tells a story.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the Minister agree that it is completely wrong for the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Reform UK to claim that President Trump did not support this deal, when he said it was a “very strong” deal that was secured for a “very long” time?

[Luke Pollard]

In support of the deal, the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, put it well when he said:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

President Trump has described the deal as “very long term” and “very strong”.

That follows a rigorous US inter-agency process, involving the whole of the US security apparatus, both under the previous Biden Administration and the current Trump Administration. This involved the Department of Defence, the National Security Council and the intelligence agencies, including the CIA. Do Conservative Members say that they do not trust the assessment of the CIA, the US and all the security apparatus? The deal secures the use of the base—they are happy with it and we are happy with it. Our Five Eyes partners recognise the benefits of the treaty for our collective security. The deal is supported by Japan, South Korea and India. It is also a deal publicly welcomed by the African Union, the UN Secretary General and the Commonwealth.

I turn now to the issue of Chagossians, which needs to be raised as well. While the negotiations were necessarily conducted on a state-to-state basis, we are alive to the diverse views of Chagossians about their future, and we have the utmost respect for their past suffering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely right. Of course, this Government do not like speaking about inflation for all the macro-economic reasons we know about. Inflation under this Government continues to rise, which speaks volumes about their handling of the economy.

This deal is so bad for Britain, it has left our country humiliated and weaker on the world stage. Our friends and enemies alike are laughing at the UK and Labour’s epic diplomatic failure to stand up for our national interests.

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Lady says that this is an international problem for the UK, but does she not agree that the Americans, the Canadians, the New Zealanders, the Australians, the Indians and even the Pope support the deal? It is really important that our Five Eyes security partners are behind us.

[Priti Patel]

Having led Five Eyes for our country—I am very proud to have done so—it is a matter of great concern that the deal has been backed by Iran, China and Russia. I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly why this is a bad deal for our country. [Interruption.] It is correct, actually, and I can point him to the references where those countries have spoken in favour of the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

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

[Alex Ballinger]

Could the right hon. Lady outline what was in the deal that the last Conservative Foreign Secretary was negotiating? The points of sovereignty and everything else were conceded by her party.

[Priti Patel]

I will now give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones).

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Member, who was laughing and sneering at fellow colleagues earlier—that is simply not acceptable—should have listened to what I said. I will restate it for the House: there was no deal done whatsoever.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not. As we have already heard from Conservative Members, we have rarely seen the methodology that the Government are now hiding behind used for any spending announcements. When the Minister winds up, I wonder if he will commit to presenting all future spending decisions using this methodology—or perhaps he could explain why the Government have singled out this large and embarrassing expenditure to be formulated in this way. That is down to the fact that they are covering up a colossal cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I am going to make progress, and I have taken plenty of interventions.

The Minister touched on the base at Diego Garcia, which is one of the most important military assets in the world. It gives us and our US allies significant global reach, but the treaty undermines that position, and the Bill contains no measures to mitigate its effects.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not; I have given way plenty of times to the hon. Gentleman.

The surrender of sovereignty means that Britian will be a rule taker, taking the laws, rules and commands of Mauritius, and that restricts and impedes base operations. For example, Mauritius has signed up to the Pelindaba treaty, banning the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons; no Minister has been able to provide a definitive answer when questioned about how that may impact our security and defence, once the UK is no longer sovereign in, or able to exercise sovereign rights over, the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia.

Under the terms of the treaty, we are bound to notify Mauritius of various activities relating to our use of the base, including operations from the base against that country, and movements of our allies’ vessels. Despite heavy questioning, at no point have Ministers explained in detail how the notifications will work, and who will have access to the information.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. That is why it was important to have a debate on the Floor of the House when the treaty came together, but we did not have one. The treaty brings into question everything about security, including our ability to be as strong and secure as we need to be.

It will come as no surprise to Members to hear that now that our sovereignty over the base is being surrendered, our enemies are queuing up to—guess what?—make friends with Mauritius. Just days before the surrender treaty was signed, Russia agreed a new partnership agreement with Mauritius that includes marine research. That so-called “marine research” conducted by Russia could take place just a handful of miles away from our base. Mauritius has also been courted extensively by Iran and China for further partnerships in a range of other areas. Despite the warnings, this inept Labour Government have failed to act to safeguard our interests.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee had the Minister in front of us to discuss the deal, so there has been parliamentary scrutiny on this, including by other Committees, just not by the Defence Committee. On the costs, as the PPS to Lord Cameron, maybe he can say a little bit about what the cost was of the deal they negotiated at the end of those 11 rounds—whether it was higher or lower than the deal we have reached now.

[Paul Holmes]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman. Let me say it very clearly and very slowly, because I know that hon. Members have written their speeches before the debate started: zero. Zero is less than the deal the Minister is choosing. Let me repeat it very slowly for the hon. Gentleman and for Members across the House: the deal was ended. There was no deal. The negotiations stopped. There were no negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman specifically on that issue, but I can tell him that it has been absolutely clear that whatever the UNCLOS opinion is, it is not binding on this country. We will read with interest its view, but it is not one that we are necessarily required to follow.

The existing position has safeguarded the interests of this country for a very long period, so the first question one is required to ask is: why are we changing a guaranteed security status for this country by handing over the sovereignty of Diego Garcia? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has said, it is based on opinions that have been expressed but not ones that we are required to follow.

As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said, I understand that the original linkage of the Chagos islands to Mauritius that took place was regarded as a matter of administrative convenience. However, they are actually 1,250 miles apart. On that basis, when the United Kingdom agreed to the independence of Mauritius, it was separated from the Chagos islands. There was no suggestion at that time that the two should be linked and that the islands be given over to Mauritius, which, despite the linkage, had no claim and no involvement in their running.

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledge that by opening negotiations with Mauritius, the last Government conceded that there was a point around sovereignty to be discussed and that, certainly from then onwards, it was difficult for this Government to roll back that point?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It had already been rolled back. The hon. Gentleman is right that the last Government began discussions because Mauritius expressed a view. However, that was on the basis that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached. It was concluded that such an agreement could not be reached, and on that basis the last Government ceased the negotiations. It is not a question of their being rolled back; it was this Government who chose to reopen negotiations that had been closed down by the previous Government.

I come back to the international judgments. The other one cited by Ministers on the Government Front Bench early on in the discussion, when this issue was first raised, was the risk to access to electromagnetic spectrum as a result of the ITU potentially reaching a judgment that might be based on the non-binding judgment expressed by the ICJ. There is no actual evidence that it was going to do that, but it was possible that it might, and for that reason the Government expressed the view that this was important.

I would point out that the ITU has no ability to determine the use of spectrum. The Minister, in answering a written parliamentary question in February this year, made it clear that the allocation of spectrum was a matter for sovereign states. The ITU is a sort of gentleman’s club where everyone gets together to discuss these matters, but it is not able to hand over the right to the use of spectrum from one country to another. It is also worth noting that the ITU has, over the years, been subject to considerable pressure from China, which had a secretary general of the ITU. I recall from my time dealing with issues around the ITU the real concern about how the Chinese were seeking to use the ITU, so in my view it is a good thing that the ITU does not have the power to allocate spectrum.

There are also serious strategic concerns that the Government have not yet properly addressed. As has already been mentioned, an element of the agreement involves a requirement for us to “expeditiously inform” Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, I pressed him on whether that would require advance notification—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech earlier, although he is no longer in this place. We have heard clearly from those on the Opposition Benches that they are opposed to this deal, so it is first worth outlining what sort of deal they are opposed to. They are opposed to a deal that secures our vital national interest on probably the most important base in the country’s history in the Indian ocean. They are opposed to a deal that is supported by every one of our Five Eyes closest security partners. As we have heard from many of them, they are opposed to a deal that they spent 11 rounds negotiating over two years, and we have not quite heard from them why they started negotiating that deal in the first place. They spent 11 rounds negotiating it, but they have not yet told us—the shadow Minister or otherwise—why they felt it was necessary and why they think this Government might have come to the same conclusion as they did at that time. I believe, as many of us do on the Government Benches, that that dangerous rhetoric puts the security of our base in Diego Garcia at risk. It is playing politics with our national security.

I want to take us back in history for one moment to look at a similar situation. During the second world war, the UK established another airfield in the Indian ocean known as RAF Gan. RAF Gan was the southernmost island in the Maldives, and it was secured in 1942 by the Royal Navy, and then taken over by the Air Force, to secure our operations all across the Indian ocean into the far east, combating the Japanese threat we were facing there. It was such a successful base that the Japanese did not even discover its existence until close to the end of the war, once their expansion plans had ended. Later, in the cold war, it became a vital staging post for the UK and our allies to get our forces across to Singapore and other bases in the far east. In fact, my father served there in 1974, and it was a great shame that two years later we closed that base and handed it over to the Maldivian Government at the same time that we secured our base in Diego Garcia.

I mention that case in particular because it was a vital strategic secure base of ours in a similar situation to Diego Garcia. As soon as the Maldivian Government took possession of that base, the Russians began to exert influence to try to take it over. They were attempting to take over the base that we occupied—that we spent decades developing—and turn it into a secure base for the Soviet Union. They are doing exactly the same thing again on Diego Garcia. They are trying to influence the Mauritian Government to claim the base for their own use.

[Dr Evans]

Is this not the point that we have heard time and again from Government Members? This deal runs out in 99 years, and at that point Mauritius can simply close the base or hand it on to the biggest offer. We get first rights on it, but if the Chinese decide to invest hundreds of billions, we may not be able to match that. We are over a barrel. In 100 years’ time, people will be in this place having this exact debate saying, “How do we solve this problem?” Is the hon. Member as concerned about that as I am?

[Alex Ballinger]

I go back to the example of RAF Gan. The Maldivians refused the Soviet Union back in 1976, because the UK had a good reputation with them. We honoured our agreements and respected international law, and they felt that it was inappropriate for them to be seen to be supporting a country that had not done the same.

In the case of Diego Garcia, this is a situation that has been negotiated for many years. The Conservatives recognised that there was a threat to our sovereignty, because they started the negotiations. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, if we are unable to conclude a deal soon, there is a serious risk that our operations at the base would be thwarted. It would not be in 99 or 140 years after the deal; it would be in weeks or months.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will carry on for a moment, and then I will give way.

Despite the risks, the Conservatives have come out in opposition to this deal. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—the former Foreign Secretary, who is not in his place—has described the deal as “weak, weak, weak”, but it was he who started the negotiations back in 2023. He pledged that he would complete the deal in the same year, but he was unable to do so. Maybe it was his negotiating tactics that were “weak, weak, weak”, rather than anything else. For all the Conservatives’ complaining about this agreement, they have failed again to offer any insight into why they started the negotiations in the first place.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Questions about why the negotiations started have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), given that the national interest is the primary concern of all responsible Governments and could easily be compromised by this deal, but will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? It has been made absolutely crystal clear in this debate that Lord Cameron, when he became Foreign Secretary, ended those negotiations. Lord Cameron is a man of immense experience, who has probably negotiated at a level beyond anyone present in this Chamber. He would have certainly taken legal advice within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before he closed those negotiations. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Lord Cameron closed them down, and why does he think that this Government reopened them?

[Alex Ballinger]

We do not know why Lord Cameron closed them down, because the Conservatives have not released any details of the deal that they negotiated up to that point. Maybe the costs were too high because they had not negotiated a better deal, or maybe things like the 24-mile security zone were not included in the deal, but this Government have secured a better deal. It is important for us to secure our national security.

It is also worth pointing out that Conservative Governments have not looked after our national security over the last 14 years. I have served, and I have seen the damage that was caused by 14 years of under-investment and neglect of our armed forces. Our Army has been reduced to a size that has not been seen since the time of Napoleon. Service accommodation standards are scandalous, which our people do not deserve in the slightest, and the Conservatives cut the defence budget so deep that Russia felt that we were too weak to stop an invasion in Europe. I am pleased to see that this Labour Government are investing again in our armed forces and starting to fix the damage of those 14 years.

Since we are talking about investment, let me touch on the investment value of this deal. Diego Garcia’s location—far from major population centres—makes it the ultimate secure base. It is a deepwater port in a key staging area in the Indian ocean, and is vital for our submarine operations. It contains the longest runway in the entire Indian ocean, putting our aircraft in reach of Africa, the middle east and east Asia. In order to continue the operation of such a base for 99 years, we are looking at an average cost of £101 million a year. That is around 0.2% of our defence budget—less than the cost of a single aircraft carrier. As we heard from my hon. Friends, it is a better deal than the French have achieved in Djibouti for a base that is right next to the Chinese operations, and has a total cost that is less than the amount of money that the last Government wasted on faulty PPE during the pandemic.

Diego Garcia is vital for our national security—I think everybody in this place agrees with that. Two years ago, the Conservatives also agreed on the need for a deal.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. On the pricing, he said that Government Front Benchers are putting it out that this is a good deal. Would it still be a good deal if it was £35 billion or something like that?

[Alex Ballinger]

As the hon. Member will know, the official Government statistics say the cost is £3.5 billion, which is about 0.2% of our defence budget. I wonder what other assets in the entire world that may be worth 0.2% of our defence budget are quite as effective and important as Diego Garcia.

I will come to my conclusion. The last Government wanted a deal. They started negotiating a deal and conducted 11 rounds of negotiations on a deal. Now, however, because they think that they can score some political points, they are choosing to side with our adversaries. I humbly suggest that if they really had the UK’s national security in mind, they would agree with what the US State Department told the Foreign Affairs Committee on our recent visit to Washington, and some of the Conservative Committee members were in that meeting. The US State Department told us, “Thank you for securing this deal, which we think is vital for both our nations’ security.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

There are no two ways about it: this is a surrender Bill with no benefits to my Broxbourne constituents. Ministers have shamefully attempted to hide the shocking cost of this deal from the British people and the public at large. When the new Labour Government took office, they kept telling us in this Chamber about the pretend £22 billion black hole in the public finances. If the black hole of £22 billion that we are continually told about by the Government did exist, I could solve it overnight—don’t do this deal. This deal is £35 billion to the Mauritian Government. The Labour Government go after British family farms with the family farm tax. They go after our pensioners and take their winter fuel allowance away, and they increase national insurance contributions for businesses, to make it more expensive for them to employ people, but they could just not do this deal. They talk in fiction, and this is an absolute disgrace.

How will Mauritius spend this money? By cutting taxes for its own citizens and paying their debts. Is the Minister proud that the only income tax cuts that this Labour Government will deliver are 6,000 miles away at the expense of the British taxpayer? The last time I checked, this was the British Parliament and we are supposed to stand up for British interests, not the interests of foreign countries or foreign citizens. We should be cutting taxes here and turbocharging the economy, not giving stuff away that we already own. We already have a base, and now we are going to lease it back, as we have heard from a number of colleagues.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lewis Cocking]

No, I will not give way. There have been lots of interventions, and I am fed up with the same interventions coming from the same Labour Members. Quite frankly it does not help the debate—just because they say something several times does not make it true.

The Bill is costing us financially, but it also has security risks. China supports the deal and is welcoming Mauritius into its sphere of influence with open arms. Mauritius is strengthening relations with Iran and Russia. As a Policy Exchange report notes, it is impossible to assert with certainty how much influence China will have over Mauritius in the next five or 10 years, let alone for the 99-year duration of this lease.

We already have British sovereign territory with a base, so I cannot understand why we have done that negotiation, and why we are hurting the British people with tax rises. As I said, we are being cruel to older people by taking away their winter fuel allowance, going after farmers with the family farm tax, and going after British businesses with the increase to national insurance contributions, yet we can find money out of nowhere—£35 billion—to give to Mauritius.

In summary, I gently say to the Government that people out there know that. When we knock on doors, as I am sure we all do across our constituencies, people will say to us, “Hang on a minute. How come we are being punished? How come we have to pay more taxes, but you soon find money when it suits you?” That is why the British public have fallen out of love with this Government already. Hopefully the Government will wake up and start representing the people who they were elected to represent in this Chamber: the British public, not foreign Governments such as that of Mauritius.

Afghanistan

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised his concerns about that case. If he writes to me with the details, I will take a hard look at it.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I served twice in Afghanistan alongside some of the bravest soldiers, judges and women’s rights defenders I have met. After the fall of Kabul, I was based in Pakistan with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where I was involved in the evacuation from Afghanistan. At that time, despite the excellent work of people who served in Op Pitting, we saw many mistakes made by the last Government, including dogs being prioritised ahead of people. This data breach, which was held secret for years, is just the latest embarrassment from that evacuation. Will the Secretary of State consider a Select Committee inquiry into not just the breaches in this case, but the entire Afghan relocation system, which has failed so many times?

[John Healey]

One of the great joys of this House is the depth and breadth of experience that Members on all sides bring to debates. I applaud my hon. Friend and the insights he brings from his experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is certainly not for Ministers to define the terms of any inquiry that a Select Committee of this House may choose to undertake. That will be a matter, quite properly, for those Committees. If Ministers are summoned and required to account and give evidence, we certainly will.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Shaking your head and making comments —that is certainly not the example I want to see when I am looking to keep the House calm. I do not need the backchat; that has been going on for a while.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security?

[John Healey]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point in a judicious way. The shadow Defence Secretary could learn a bit from him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

15. If he will make it his policy to negotiate a defence and security agreement with the EU.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

21. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of a security and defence partnership with the EU on NATO.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

This is a Government delivering for defence. Today we have agreed a new bespoke and ambitious security and defence partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The SDP will strengthen NATO, the cornerstone of the UK’s defence, and it will grow the economy. It allows us to step up more effectively together on European security against growing Russian aggression and the increasing threats that we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

This is a big step today—a broad and bespoke agreement between the European Union and the UK on security and defence—but it is a first step. Settling the details and the terms of access for European programmes, including the SAFE funding programme, is exactly the task beyond today.

[Alex Ballinger]

Before being elected, I was proud to serve alongside our European allies, including French, Dutch and Estonian forces, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we build on those alliances to strengthen European security. Can the Secretary of State tell us how we can do more to strengthen European mechanisms for security, such as the joint expeditionary force, to build our collective security?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right about the joint expeditionary force, and he is right to emphasise the importance of the step today. While NATO is the cornerstone of our European security—and recognised as such by the European Union in its White Paper—the step today will mean that we will be able to upgrade our co-operation with the European Union on the mobility of military matériel and personnel, on maritime and space security, on irregular migration and on protecting our critical infrastructure. It opens the door to closer defence industrial collaboration, including potential participation in the EU’s €150 billion SAFE arrangements.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I add my words of support for the action the UK took last night. The Houthi group is a terrorist organisation that has been deeply destabilising and it is right that we are playing our role in protecting freedom of navigation. The Halesowen community of Yemenis are really concerned about the desperate humanitarian situation in Yemen. Could the Secretary of State add a few more words on what we are doing to support Yemenis who are so desperate right now, and what we are doing to end the civil war?

[John Healey]

Yes. I mentioned the in-year uplift that the Foreign Secretary gave to our contribution to the Yemeni humanitarian assistance plan, which makes us the third-largest donor. Our focus on aid has been especially on food, of which there is a critical shortage and which is a necessity to hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. We calculate that we will have helped almost 900,000 Yemenis with our food support this year. Our support is also in healthcare, supporting over 700 medical centres across the country with medicines, vaccines and some of the basic equipment needed to provide the healthcare that people also so desperately need in that country.

Ukraine Update

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I can indeed. These were men, women and children on their way to church; children were killed and severely injured in the attack. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you want short questions and short answers at this stage.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

With other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was in Ukraine before Easter, and there were three separate air attacks while we were in Kyiv. Fortunately, the air defence in Kyiv is particularly good, but that is not the case elsewhere in the country. Could the Secretary of State say more about how we are supporting Ukraine on air defence and whether we are considering supporting the new Sky Shield system?

[John Healey]

Alongside drones, we have given the highest priority to what we can do to support air defence systems in Ukraine. I have mentioned some of the recent commitments we have made and deliveries we are undertaking. During the course of 2025, we will develop and deliver more of those.