Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Alex Ballinger

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

EU-UK Summit

Debate between John Hayes and Alex Ballinger

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for arranging this debate. Maybe it will be the start of cross-party working on the EU.

The people of Halesowen voted to leave at the Brexit referendum of 2016 because they believed the promises that were made by the Brexit campaign, but what they got from the last Conservative Government was a botched Brexit deal, half-baked and deeply damaging. I am proud to come to the debate as we welcome a landmark trade deal with the European Union, one that delivers real benefits for British businesses, workers and families. Labour promised to fix the damage left by the Tories’ failed Brexit deal, and this week that is exactly what we are doing.

For years, Britain was held back: 21% fewer exports, rising food prices and businesses drowning in red tape. But this week, that changed. The deal marks a new chapter, ensuring that Britain is stronger, fairer and more competitive on the world stage. It is a game changer for the west midlands, and for my constituents in Halesowen. Nowhere will the benefits be felt more than in the Black Country, an area built on industry. The deal cuts red tape on over 1,500 products, slashes costs, and secures greater certainty for local businesses.

Manufacturing makes up 14% of jobs in my area. It is a massive employer, but in the last 30 years the Black Country has lost over 30,000 jobs in the sector. We were once the engine room of the British economy, but while promises piled up, investments passed us by. This deal, on top of the deals Labour has secured with the US and India, will get our economy turbocharged once again. It is about supporting British steel, protecting jobs, and our future as a manufacturing powerhouse. Labour has cut £25 million a year from tariffs, which will help our steel industry to compete on the world stage and will save steelmaking jobs. It is about bringing down energy costs because we know how critical that is for households and businesses alike. This deal dodges a £7 billion carbon tax, and Octopus Energy tells us that it will bring down household bills and provide relief to normal consumers.

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) to talk about the imbalance in food exports and imports. The EU sells us far more than we sell it. Are we not moving to a less globalist age—a post-liberal age—in which countries will need to be more economically resilient, as I described earlier? We need to shorten supply lines and so on. On that basis, why would we want to make it easier for people from abroad to sell goods to compete with our farmers and growers?

[Alex Ballinger]

We have been talking in this debate about some of the advantages to British agriculture and the British fishing industry of access to the European market. Of course, it will be fantastic for the people who have been welcoming this deal, and the deal will also be very much welcomed by the many consumers in Halesowen who will see prices on their supermarket shop fall as a result of it.

Gambling Harms

Debate between John Hayes and Alex Ballinger

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I agree that balance is important, but the situations that hon. Members have described in this debate show that balance is not there at the moment. No one is suggesting banning traditional forms of gambling such as bookmakers, horseracing, lotteries and so on. However, pernicious advertising and harmful online gambling need to be properly regulated, and that is not happening at the moment.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for arriving a little late to his opening remarks. The point is that the occasional flutter on the Grand National or a game of bingo, such as my mother played, is a world away from the gambling that he describes. A statutory levy has been announced; will he ask the Minister perhaps to talk about how it will operate? It must not be controlled by the very people who are doing the harm.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am delighted that the right hon. Member raises this important point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I will come on to the levy in a moment.

The public, too, are concerned about gambling advertising, with opinion polls consistently showing most people in the UK want a clampdown. As we have heard, we fall well behind other countries, with the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all having almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. We can clearly see that the boom in online gambling and huge rise in advertising and marketing is leading to an increase in gambling harms.

That leads me on to the legislation, which is in urgent need of an update. The last time primary gambling legislation was put forward was the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission, with the primary aims of preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, ensuring that it was conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling companies. The Act was delivered before the rise of online gambling and before smartphones even existed; it is an analogue Act in a digital age and has long been in need of an update.

However, I was pleased to see the statutory levy introduced last week by the Government, which will generate £100 million from gambling operators to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms —without a doubt, an important step in ensuring that the industry begins to pay for the harm it causes. While the changes to the levy are welcome, however, we lack clarity on where the money raised through the levy will go on prevention. It is important that prevention commissioning is undertaken independently of the gambling industry. We cannot expect people to access services commissioned by the industry that they have been harmed or exploited by.