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.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defence industries in the West Midlands.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Global threats are evolving, making defence investment more critical than ever. A strong defence underpins our security and sovereignty, but we must scale up to meet the modern challenges. The warning flags were raised in 2014, yet the UK lacked a long-term strategy. The defence industry drives innovation and economic growth, but skill shortages and supply chain volatility risk holding it back. Our armed forces are only as strong as our defence sector.

Across the west midlands and the UK, the defence industry provides security, supports thousands of jobs, and fuels innovation in areas such as AI, cyber and advanced manufacturing. The region is home to major players, including Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock, with BAE Systems alone working with 11 small and medium-sized enterprises, including one in my constituency of Tamworth.

The Government’s renewed focus on defence as part of their industrial strategy is welcome. I also support the recent commitment to the largest defence spending increase since the cold war, meaning that we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. With post-war alliances shifting, we must continue investing in our defence capabilities.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I recently visited Somers Forge in my constituency—it is the 10th oldest SME in the United Kingdom, and has been supplying defence equipment since the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. It was great to meet with its team, and see the important work that it does. Does my hon. Friend agree that our defence industrial strategy will help SMEs access defence investment and boost businesses such as Somers Forge in the west midlands?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. This industrial strategy is essential in making sure we have the focus to support our businesses right across the region, and in making sure that they are successful.

The upcoming defence industrial strategy must prioritise British businesses, including SMEs, ensuring that investment creates jobs and strengthens our national security. Currently, nearly 18,000 people work in defence SMEs in the west midlands, and the Ministry of Defence spends £1.6 billion annually in the region, making it the UK’s third largest defence hub. By backing UK industry, and fostering co-operation between Government, business and workers, we can build a defence sector fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

That is an excellent question. It comes down to how we implement the defence industrial strategy that my colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, is leading within the Department. That needs to tie in with the whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort for our national defence, which is something Parliament will need to speak more of in future. To defend our nation and support our allies, we will need this mission to be held passionately not just by people in uniform and the Ministry of Defence. We will need every Department to understand its contribution to that mission. When we invest in skills, we will have the opportunity to do that.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned the Type 26 builds in Scotland. As the MP for Devonport in Plymouth, where the Type 26s will be based, I know how incredible these frigates will be, how they will deter Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic, and how they will contribute directly to the security of our nation and our allies.

To build those frigates, we will need to invest in skills on a long-term basis. We are looking at how we can have multi-year budgets, to invest more in skills and supply chains, rather than having the annual cycle. Frankly, and as the Defence Secretary has made very clear, defence needs to spend money better than it has in the past. That is why he started a programme of defence reform to make sure we reform not only how we fight and how we are configured, but also how we procure. The recruitment for a new national armaments director is a significant part of driving the defence reform needed to support SMEs as well as primes.

[Alex Ballinger]

We are talking about procurement. Just this week I met Members of the European Parliament in Brussels to talk about our collective response to Ukraine. One of the challenges that Somers Forge in my Halesowen constituency faces is the struggle with European supply chains and the trade barriers between the UK and Europe. As we go through a new reset with Europe, will the Minister commit to push for greater access for defence industries to the European market?

Defence Programmes Developments

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I echo other hon. Members who have said how nice it is to hear from so many servicemen and women in this House, and so many hon. Members who represent service communities, who are collectively behind this Bill.

Just over a week ago we observed Remembrance Sunday, a solemn day to honour the courage, dedication and sacrifice of our armed forces. That annual act of remembrance is a poignant reminder of the immense debt of gratitude we owe those who serve. It is therefore fitting that the Government have in the same month introduced the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which rightly recognises that improving the lives of service personnel and their families is not only a moral duty, but a necessity if we are to recruit and retain the people we need.

Over the past decade our armed forces have faced significant challenges, compounded by underfunding and a series of cuts. Research has laid bare the reality: optimism among the armed forces has reached record lows, and recruitment and retention are in a state of crisis. Annual surveys of service personnel consistently reveal high levels of dissatisfaction with service life. Nearly 60% report low morale and less than half express satisfaction with their service experience. Those figures speak volumes about the pressing need for reform and meaningful change.

I know how bad it has become, because I come from a service family. I grew up living on an RAF base and I followed my dad and brother into the armed forces. In recent years we have all seen the deterioration in the experience of service life, with the state of accommodation in particular being a huge problem. For example, my brother, after 20 years’ service in the Royal Air Force, was expected to live in accommodation that had rising damp and sewage leaking into part of the premises. His family, with a young daughter, was expected to live in a house with black mould and broken plumbing. That is unacceptable. We would not expect prisoners to live like that, and we should not expect our brave servicemen and women and their families to live in such conditions.

I have spoken to many people in my constituency and elsewhere who have a similar story: poor housing and a lack of action from those who have responsibility. That is why it is so important to have an Armed Forces Commissioner to advocate on behalf of service personnel such as my brother when their voices go unheard. This commissioner will provide a powerful and independent voice for service personnel and the families who support them. They will report directly to Parliament, ensuring accountability and transparency in addressing the needs and concerns of those who serve, and the framework will give service personnel confidence that their voices are heard, their issues are taken seriously and they have a robust advocate working on their behalf.

Every year we stand together as a nation to pay tribute to those who have given their lives in service to our country, but that tribute must go beyond words and ceremonies; it must be matched by concrete actions by the politicians entrusted with representing their interests. As a veteran, I understand how deeply service shapes not only those who serve, but their families. I am proud to stand here today both as an MP and as a former Royal Marine to lend my full support this Bill at Second Reading. This legislation is a step in the right direction and a step towards ensuring that every member of our armed forces knows that their sacrifices are valued and that they are supported by a system designed to protect their interests and those of their families. For too long, those needs have gone unmet. This Bill is an opportunity to change that.

Ukraine

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

One of the Government’s great assets is my hon. Friend the Minister of State because of the work that he does with many other countries. Whenever discussions are required or evidence is gathered he speaks to many of the countries that may find that they have within them companies that might be involved in those supply chains. Wherever that happens, my hon. Friend is on it, and he is leading the charge to ensure that where we can identify those supply chains, we take the action that is necessary to close them down.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his very welcome statement.

As we approach 1,000 days since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is increasingly clear that Ukraine’s survival depends on the west increasing its manufacture of munitions. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about boosting our defence industrial supply chains, including in the west midlands, where defence manufacturers are keen to contribute?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. The importance of the British defence industry is not just in the greater security that it gives us as a nation but as part of the economic boost that will drive growth in future. One feature I was pleased to see at the recent Government investment summit was the confirmation that defence would be one of the eight economic growth sectors that would receive priority policy focus and support as we develop that for the future. That is in the interests of Ukraine immediately, and it is in our own interests in future. It is how we can combine both the strengthening of our national security and the boost to our national economy.