Israel and Palestine

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have raised those issues on a regular basis, and I have discussed with Palestinian Ministers the impact that it is having on their ability to function. My hon. Friend raises a very important point.

I will make a little progress, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. I know that a number of Members will want to raise the issue of arms sales and export licensing. I want to be clear to the House that we have already suspended or refused more than 80 export licences in relation to Gaza, and our suspension remains fully in place. I also remind hon. Members—there is a lot of misinformation about this issue—that not all export licences are for military purposes or indeed provided to the Israel Defence Forces; they include exports of crucial medicines, body armour, defensive capabilities and material that is not used in Israel but is used in important components for allies.

I want to emphasise very clearly, as the Foreign Secretary said, that because of our view that the occupation is itself unlawful we will also now refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation. In effect, that provides a double lock against all relevant exports, on the basis of which we will determine our export licensing. That means that the ban on exports will remain for relevant items as long as the occupation persists—that is very clear.

I want to clarify, because it is important, what these measures will not do. Our sanctions regime will not target important and valued trade with green-line Israel. We oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign, including attempts to exclude Israel from, for example, sports or cultural activities. This is not a ban on travel or religious visits or, indeed, religious expression—that is very important. We will put in place the appropriate religious exemptions, and I thank all those who have raised important and sensitive matters with us on that. It is important that we listen to those communities and also that we do not share misinformation around what this regime does or does not do. We will work to ensure that the measures we set out do not have unintended consequences.

On the timing, the expanded global human rights regime will come within weeks. We expect the legislation for the wider new sanctions in relation to settlements to take around six to nine months, but as the Foreign Secretary said, if we can do it sooner, we will. I want to explain to the House that because sanctions are impactful and powerful, but also technical, we have to take time to carefully design them to ensure that they have the impact we want, that they are lawful and proportionate, that they do not have unintended consequences and, crucially, that they are enforceable.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Can I raise the “NAZA” film that was recently shown at the Venice film festival? It talks about the targeting systems that the IDF used in Gaza, and where it had specifically waited for Hamas fighters to return home so it could target them in a place they knew, but with huge civilian casualties. One whistleblower suggested that 500 civilians were killed in a strike on a single Hamas target. To give a UK example, something similar happened against three former British servicemen at the World Central Kitchen. Could the Minister reflect on that documentary and how we will get accountability for those former British servicemen who were killed with this awful targeting system?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have not seen the documentary that my hon. Friend mentions, but the fact is there have been horrendous humanitarian deaths, including the ones he mentioned and, of course, appalling numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I were clear that the decision about World Central Kitchen was shameful. We have been in contact with the families and have obviously urged the relevant authorities to reconsider that decision. In the end, all these matters will be reviewed and understood by courts and other competent authorities, but there is significant evidence of atrocities being committed, and I have been very clear on that specific case.

I am clear that we are already taking action on those involved in settler violence, using the powers we have. That includes the five extremist settlers that we sanctioned last Tuesday, and we have also, alongside partners including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, sanctioned extremist Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in their personal capacities in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities.

It is also important to say—this perhaps did not receive as much attention last week, but it is very important—that we absolutely recognise the threats that Israel faces, and not only Israel but other countries in the region, from Iran. That is why we imposed a number of sanctions on Iran last week, and we also sanctioned Lebanese Hezbollah. In the light of the actions we see in Yemen and around the Bab al-Mandab, we also absolutely condemn the actions of the Houthis—the atrocities they are responsible for—and we are working closely with partners, including the Government of Yemen and others. But it is absolutely crucial to recognise that the Houthis have previously struck against Israel.

I want to reiterate—I am conscious that we are in the high holy days—that no community must face discrimination, violence, hate or the threat of violence. Antisemitism disgusts me, as I am sure it does all of us in this House, and the Foreign Secretary is very clear that the actions we took are against the Israeli Government, not Israel, not its people. In any case, holding British Jews responsible for the actions ever of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple. I have heard directly from Jewish communities in my own constituency the threats and risks they face—I know we have all heard similar. We are living in a time when we have had the horrific attacks in Heaton Park and, indeed, what we saw in Golders Green. That is why we are investing £250 million for community security. We are taking action on antisemitism in schools and communities. In October, the Foreign Secretary will host representatives of the J7 to discuss how we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism. I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on post-Holocaust issues and, more broadly, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on freedom of religion and belief.

I will conclude, because I know many Members want to speak, by saying that we know the actions we announced last week would prompt strong reactions, but that did not mean they were any less necessary. It is deeply regrettable that the Israeli Government have announced measures, such as wanting to close our consulate in Jerusalem, but we stand by our actions. If we are guided by values, by the law and by the facts on the ground, we need to see action and leadership. That is the right thing to do to defend the two-state solution, which is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, but also in our national interest, and we have been joined by others, including France and Canada.

Peace and security depend on our resolve to create the conditions in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states, confident in their futures. We might be far from that hope being realised at present, but it is one that we will work absolutely assiduously to deliver, and we have to speak and act with clarity to achieve that. I look forward to the contributions of Members across the House and am glad to have been able to open the debate.

Israel and Palestine

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

Like all our sanctions regimes, fines and action will be taken against companies that breach them. We are widely known across the world for the strength of our sanctions regime. It is really important to underline the point that, by using the SAMLA powers, these will be tough sanctions, and it will be absolutely clear that there will be penalties for breaching them.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Government’s new sanctions, which are the right and moral approach to the crimes we have been seeing and continue to see in the west bank. The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments from Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir that, in response to the sanctions, Israel should recognise Argentina’s claims on the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary now make it clear that such threats will not stop the UK upholding international law and the right of people to self-determination, whether that is in the Falkland Islands or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

[Ed Miliband]

Obviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are sending the most unequivocal message imaginable that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they choose to be. It is also important to reassure the House that our forces in the south Atlantic are maintained at the appropriate level to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. The right hon. Member mentioned Diego Garcia, and I want to underscore for the House that that is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. It has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years, and that is precisely why we did a deal to ensure that we could maintain the long-term operational control and security of Diego Garcia.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

President Milei has coupled his renewed sovereignty claim with an increase in defence spending and plans to expand the naval base at Tierra del Fuego. In the light of these developments, can the Minister tell us if we have updated our threat assessments, and if the Falkland Islands’ air, land and maritime defences are adequate to ensure the islands’ and the islanders’ security?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his service. We are confident that the situation that we have in place with defensive capability is adequate for the threats faced.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I know that the hon. Member for Clacton has a number of additional jobs in combination with his responsibilities as an MP, but I had not realised, until his recent adventure, that small boat captain was among them. Maybe, as a former Royal Marine, I could help him with his navigation. Could my hon. Friend the Minister remind the hon. Member for Clacton what the penalty is for taking a trip to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend paints the hon. Member for Clacton as a captain, but I will decline the opportunity to be the sheriff on this occasion.

Iran

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I do not think that the Iranian Government’s interpretation of the actions of the British Government in recent weeks is one of weakness. The sanctions package announced on Monday was far-ranging and follows a whole range of actions, some of which I described in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary.

The fair point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, given the urgency of the situation, are we taking all of the steps that we need to take? We think that the Hall review is a substantial contribution to the question about the risks of the IRGC; we want to follow it carefully and make sure that we do this properly. That does not mean that we cannot act swiftly through our sanctions regime in the way that we announced yesterday.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in recent weeks. However, it is also important that those who do Iran’s bidding on the streets of the UK—particularly in targeting peaceful protesters—are held to account. I welcomed, last year, the UK’s decision to put Iran on the foreign influence registration scheme. Will the Minister update us on the impact that that is having on the crackdown that Iran is trying to carry out on our own streets?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the question. Hostile states have sought to take advantage of the freedoms in this country by failing to register agents on our soil who are seeking to act on their behalf in whatever way. The foreign influence registration scheme means that it is now an offence for someone not to declare that they are acting as an agent for another country. It may well be that those seeking to act for Iran do not register under FIRS. If they do not, they are committing an offence, and I have every confidence in our services and police force that such people will be found.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Alex Ballinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Graham Stuart]

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

[Alex Ballinger]

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

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

[Graham Stuart]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, I will continue.

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

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

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

[Alex Ballinger]

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

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

[Simon Hoare]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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

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

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

[Alex Ballinger]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Alex Ballinger]

rose—

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

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

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

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

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

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

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

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

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

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

[Edward Morello]

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

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Ward]

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

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

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

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

[Melanie Ward]

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

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

BBC Monitoring Service

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

as he then was, for the first time—

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

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

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

[Alex Ballinger]

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

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

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

Middle East

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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