UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and to take the opportunity it affords to examine, insofar as five minutes allows me so to do, the principles that underpin opposition to this treaty.

Before I do so, I congratulate, as others have, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, on an excellent maiden speech. Having heard the response to her father’s valedictory speech, which was also an excellent speech, it seems that I must have missed out in the 13 years I was in the other place and the 15 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, because I have never had the opportunity to be as close to him in working in this House as many other noble Lords have. However, I know of his reputation and I take this opportunity to thank him for his distinguished service to both Houses and wish him a long and happy retirement.

The Opposition have left no stone unturned and certainly no thesaurus unconsulted in heaping execration on this agreement. It has been described as “shameful”, a “surrender treaty”, and a “sell-out”. All of this was built upon by the Leader of the Opposition, who went further, suggesting the terms of the agreement represented a series of

“snivelling capitulations to left-wing activists who hate Britain and are ashamed of our history”.

For someone purportedly animated by a detailed knowledge of our island story, she seems to have neglected some of the more recent chapters. It was of course a Conservative Government—one in which she served at Cabinet level—who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations with Mauritius to resolve the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

This whole process of course started with the Written Statement made on 3 November 2022. There has been toing and froing about what was actually in this Statement, so, with your Lordships’ permission, I will read it, because it reveals quite a lot. In its first paragraph, the Statement says:

“Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory … Chagos archipelago. Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 27WS.]


If the issue of sovereignty was never on the table in these previous negotiations—something belied by the Statement from which I have just read—it is essential that the party opposite explains what its negotiating aims were. Of what did these negotiations consist if, as the Motion we are considering today implies, sovereignty and financial recompense were off the table? The question then arises, what was on the table beyond a union flag and a sheet of paper containing the single word “No”?

Your Lordships’ House is being asked to believe, in defiance of the negotiating parameters publicly announced by the Foreign Secretary at the time, from which I have already quoted, that these 11 rounds of negotiation had produced an embryonic deal utterly unlike that which the Government have now laid before Parliament. If the then Government were so wedded to the status quo and felt that the principle of British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands was inviolable, as most of the Opposition appeared to, why did they initiate negotiations at all, let alone go through 11 successive rounds?

As the report from the International Agreements Committee makes clear, a refusal to ratify this treaty and a further refusal to negotiate would represent a “greater risk” to the future of our base on Diego Garcia, given the vanishingly small possibility that an international court would find in our favour. I know that it has become fashionable in some quarters to see international law as an à la carte menu, but much of Britain’s influence and authority rests on our reputation—the damage of recent years notwithstanding—of adherence to these norms.

As we think about the future of the base and our role in the Indo-Pacific, I should like to engage the question of Chinese influence. Those opposed to a deal over Diego Garcia have suggested that Mauritian sovereignty over the islands may represent a huge security risk if the Chinese bring their influence to bear. While we will need to exercise constant vigilance in this respect—particularly as we move towards the end of the initial 99-year lease—precedent suggests this risk can be managed. Kenya, where since 1964 we have also had a permanent military presence—the British Army Training Unit Kenya—has a far deeper economic relationship with China, including significant indebtedness and, as of April this year, has agreed to a new agreement creating a China-Kenya community. There are many more examples I can give—including Somalia and Djibouti—where a far more explicit degree of Chinese influence has not precluded the UK maintaining a strategically significant military presence.

Mauritius is not a Chinese cat’s paw. According to the Rule of Law Project’s global ranking, its judiciary is the second most robust and independent in Africa. It has historically low levels of corruption and its principal trading partners include France, India and South Africa, as well as China. Try as I might, I can find no evidence that Mauritius and China are becoming best friends. What I can find are lots of places where it is asserted that this is being claimed—but there is no basis for it. Mauritius has strong diplomatic ties with several countries and my research supports the contention that its closest allies are the United Kingdom, France, India and South Africa.

In closing, I return to the issue of negotiation. In the other place, the shadow Defence Secretary stigmatised this deal as representing a

“complete and utter negotiating failure”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1285.]

I believe that this Motion and the Opposition’s motive in moving it represent their failure to negotiate with reality. The treaty negotiated by this Government ensures British control of Diego Garcia for the next century and beyond, it has been welcomed by the US Government with whom we work closely in this area, and we have an effective veto on developments on the Chagos Archipelago, together with a 24-nautical mile buffer zone.

I will offer this agreement my full support in these and any other proceedings in your Lordships’ House.

National Security Strategy

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, there are 20 minutes for these questions. We will hear from the Labour Benches.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader will be aware that the National Risk Register, published in January, classifies a future pandemic as the catastrophic risk with the highest likelihood of happening. The defence review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present risk. The publication of the strategy came on the same day as the Foreign Secretary announced a contribution of £1.25 billion into the resources of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, we all now know about—or have had our memories refreshed on—the level of investment that the Government have promised to support the new network of national biosecurity centres. I consider all that to be security investment but, in the latter case, over what period will the £1 billion sustain these new centres?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that security is more than just foreign security; it is also health security. One of the issues with Covid was the lack of preparedness within the NHS. We are working on that at pace. A significant preparedness exercise is about to be undertaken and we will again test the emergency alert system. We inherited a number of laboratories in a very poor condition so that their future was in doubt. That is why the investment in biosecurity is so important. So, there is the new biosecurity centre at Weybridge, with £208 million committed to that work over the next two years, but there has to be a complete network of biosecurity centres around the country. That is about disease, but it is also about health and animal products, our imports, and ensuring that we can foster innovation so we know what is coming next and can work towards it, including productivity. The £1 billion is across the current spending review period, which is three years, and it will be reviewed at the end of that period.

Cluster Munitions Convention: Article 21

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The straight answer to the question is yes, I am satisfied. I will give the noble Lord a reason for that, but we should not forget that the CCM remains vital in protecting humanitarian norms. Cluster munitions continue to pose a threat to civilians. In 2024, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor reported that civilians made up 93% of cluster munitions casualties in 2023. I have read the noble Lord’s report. Provisions for military interoperability between members of the CCM and non-members are clearly set out and enshrined in UK law and have functioned effectively since the CMM came into force. Since the convention came into force in 2010, UK Armed Forces have operated effectively, including in combat with all allies regardless of their membership of CCM, in line with the CCM provisions on interoperability under Article 21.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the comprehensive answers that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Godson. However, there is a much simpler response to this Question, to be found in the 45 words of paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the convention, which states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties”—


which includes the United Kingdom—

“their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party”.

Is that not the answer?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it may be that my noble friend has saved me some time, but I repeat that since the CMM came into operation in 2010, we have done exactly that. We have co-operated with states which are not party to the agreement. My noble friend is right.

Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the blocking of aid into Gaza by Israel has caused enormous suffering. We are aware of the allegations she refers to that Hamas uses humanitarian aid for its own gain, and we have encouraged Israel to share the evidence with the UN and with NGOs. We have not seen any evidence that there is systematic diversion to Hamas and, given the ongoing hostilities, we are unable to verify allegations through direct monitoring. We ensure that all mechanisms are in place for UK-provided aid. The situation is dire; one in five people faces starvation. Aid is available to get into Gaza now if we can unblock those routes. The surest way through is to have a ceasefire, release the hostages and get aid in now. That is essential if we are to protect and save lives.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House in a position to remove the veil from the recently formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? It is less than two and a half months since this company was put together. Can she tell us which private contractors are being set up to take the place of the United Nations and its partners? Are they capable of providing not just the scale but the diversity of aid that the UN and its partners would be able to provide to the Gazans if the Israelis lifted their blockade?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not able to satisfy my noble friend on those points; I do not have that information. We have urged the Israeli Government to share that information, because it would be very difficult to make an assessment. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to ensure that aid is delivered, but we have to ensure both that they have the expertise to get the aid in and the safety of the aid workers. Over 400 aid workers have died providing humanitarian aid. It is the most dangerous part of the world to supply aid to and in which to be a humanitarian worker. We should express our gratitude and the debt we all owe to those who put their lives at risk to help others.

Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interests of brevity, I will restrict myself to asking my noble friend the Minister whether we plan to take action on four specific recommendations made by the Media Freedom Coalition’s high-level panel.

In 2019, it published four reports, each of which concluded with a specific recommendation. Other member states have begun to act on these, but the UK, despite its status as a founding member of the coalition, has not. First, it recommended the establishment of an emergency visa for journalists at risk. Secondly, it called for the creation of an independent investigative task force that can be deployed contemporaneously with the commission of the crimes to help tackle impunity for them. Thirdly, it advocated the use of targeted sanctions to provide accountability for such crimes and the ability to utilise sanctions in cases of arbitrary detention of journalists. Lastly, it suggested the enactment of a legal duty on states to provide consular assistance to journalists when arbitrarily detained abroad.

I know that some progress has been made on the latter, with the Government pledging to introduce a legal right to consular assistance for those affected by human rights violations, but real challenges remain. When will this be implemented and how can it better protect journalists who are arbitrarily detained abroad, such as British citizens Jimmy Lai, detained in Hong Kong, and Alaa Abd El-Fattah, detained in Egypt? Can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether consideration is being given to following the example of other MFC members in adopting the high-level panel’s recommendations?

We know that the opposite of free speech is not silence but an uninterrupted monologue, and that the work of journalists in oppressive states is vital in protecting freedom and exposing governmental oppression.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the resilience of peace and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, peace, stability and upholding the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina remain a key focus of this Government and recent actions by Republika Srpska’s President Dodik have attempted to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. The Constitutional Court has suspended these unconstitutional laws. We support all citizens, communities and politicians who are focused on the reforms needed to make progress and not on engaging in divisive rhetoric.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister alluded to in his response, it is clear that tensions have risen markedly in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the recent issuing of an arrest warrant for Milorad Dodik. I understand the symbolic and practical significance of our bilateral contributions and the current presence of UK staff officers in the NATO HQ in Sarajevo, but, given Bosnia and Herzegovina’s strategic importance, which was testified to by the recent visit of Dodik to Moscow, what consideration has been, or is being, given to recommitting UK personnel to EUFOR and Operation Althea?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government are clear that, despite no longer participating in EUFOR, we continue to see its role as vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are open to exploring enhanced co-operation with the EU, including its operations and missions, as we strengthen the UK-EU security and defence relationship. If we decide to co-operate with EU missions and operations more closely, including EUFOR, we will evaluate the potential for a UK contribution on a case-by-case basis and where it aligns with UK interests.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord. On his first question, importantly, the Foreign Secretary will lead a cross-departmental process to consider all the aid allocations. We will work through how our ODA budget will be used as part of ongoing spending review and resource-allocation processes, based on various factors, including impact assessments.

To repeat the point I made before, it is important that our development efforts are seen not just through ODA. The United Kingdom uses expertise, policy influencing, global convening and other trade and economic levers. I have visited many African countries in the last six months; I know what leaders are telling me. Our new approach to developing partnerships is about leveraging greater investment, economic growth and empowerment through the creation of jobs. That is how we will deliver change, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I also draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a question I asked last Thursday, in the debate on the G7 Statement, about the precarious nature of the FCDO’s global demining programme, which was threatened at that time because the money came from ODA. I do this because, in many contexts, an artificial dichotomy between aid and security spending is something of a false dichotomy. Consequently, I ask my noble friend: what are we doing with our allies to ensure that the ODA money, which we have to spend collectively, is targeted where it can do the most good and, importantly, yield tangible benefits for peace and security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point. The demining projects are about increasing security, but they are also vital for economic growth and development. I have been to countries where we have supported those projects and where agriculture has increased as a consequence of being able to deal with that issue. So my noble friend is absolutely right: this is about economic growth but it is also about security. As he knows, we have secured the contract for HALO to ensure that we can continue this excellent work.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, in this relatively unusual outburst of ecumenism among Scots. It is also a pleasure to join the chorus of unanimity which has characterised this Bill’s progress here and in the other place. I have often had occasion to chafe against the time restrictions on Back-Bench contributions in your Lordships’ House, but, given my unqualified support for this Bill and the absence of any dissenting voices, I will keep my contribution short. I cannot guarantee, however, that it will not in part be repetitive of other noble Lords’.

This legislation is becomingly simple, and rights an obvious wrong. As we have heard, it amends the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 to allow the sovereign to nominate Lady Elish Angiolini as His Majesty’s High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, much as Section 1 of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 opened that office to members of the Roman Catholic faith. It is no surprise that it is His Majesty King Charles’s nomination of Lady Elish that has prompted this important legislation. His commitment to interfaith dialogue and mutual respect between different faiths was a constant animating principle during his time as Prince of Wales, and the Bill before your Lordships’ House today represents a further step towards formal equality.

The Promissory Oaths Act 1871 already removed a bar to people professing the Jewish faith holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. In that context, I refer to the briefing paper of the Law Society of Scotland, which I thank for identifying the remaining elements of the Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 which hold trace elements of religious discrimination that remain part of British law. I commend my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and the Prime Minister, for their energy in seeking to tackle those remaining matters of discrimination as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to, the sooner that can be done, the better, because, as we all know, legislation holds both a practical and a symbolic value. In this particular context, a Bill which removes these historic anomalies would not just be overwhelmingly welcomed in Scotland by the Roman Catholic community and others but would be a worthy symbol of positive change for a Government who base their whole term of service on changing, and this is one of the many changes which need to be added to their list.

As we have already heard, the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini exemplifies, and gives expression to, the historic St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland, signed in 2022. I am pleased to have been reminded by my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this was during his term of office, and I am not surprised that he was part of the process which caused that to happen. I thank him for his contribution.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

It was not signed during my term of office, but it was worked up during my term of office, and then approved at the General Assembly when I stood down, and signed by my successor.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. None the less, I will not withdraw my thanks and congratulations to him.

It is perhaps difficult for anyone who has not lived in Scotland to appreciate just what an extraordinary step that represented, and, still further, what the sovereign’s appointment of an Irish-born Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner represents. The spirit of ecumenism, amity and fraternity between different Christian denominations is at the heart of this legislation. In his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Pope John Paul II pleaded with Catholic leaders to adopt a fraternal attitude to the members of other denominations in the following words:

“We should therefore pray … for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them”.


Whatever one’s view of Catholicism, Christianity or faith in general, it is hard to quarrel with those sentiments. In that spirit, it is perhaps appropriate that the nomination of Lady Elish has taken place so close to the King’s state visit to the Vatican, as he continues to demonstrate his commitment to interfaith dialogue.

It has been said, but bears repeating, that Lady Elish has a record of distinguished public service, and a career that already encompasses several firsts. Noble Lords will recall the opening of Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall, in which he describes

“the sound of English county families baying for broken glass”.

Lady Elish must be used to a similar—though rather more wholesome—sound, given the number of glass ceilings that she has shattered in the course of her distinguished career. As she does so yet again, I wish her well in her new appointment, and give my wholehearted support to the Bill before your Lordships’ House.

War in Sudan

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent advances by the Sudanese Armed Forces in Khartoum and elsewhere in Sudan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the conflict in Sudan has created the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Both sides are responsible for inflicting terrible suffering on civilians. The Foreign Secretary discussed the latest developments with colleagues at the G20 last week, and in April he will host a Foreign Ministers conference to establish international consensus on the next steps. The Sudanese people deserve a peaceful Sudan led by a fully representative civilian Government.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, only weeks ago Amnesty International came into possession of a list of civilian activists, human rights defenders, medics and humanitarian workers whom the Sudanese Armed Forces planned to target for reprisals once it gained sufficient ascendency over Khartoum. The RSF has also repeatedly targeted civilians who it believes have co-operated with the SAF. As it stands, whether the SAF or the RSF win a skirmish, the civilian population always loses. What can we do, in partnership with allies, to put pressure on both sides to stop this grim pattern of reprisal attacks against the very groups that will be essential in building a lasting peace once conflict has abated?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that both sides have committed horrendous atrocities, despite the commitments they made in the Jeddah declaration to limit the impact on civilians. UK leadership has been critical of that through its continued scrutiny of Sudan. In October at the Human Rights Council, a UK-led Sudan Core Group resolution was adopted to renew the mandate of the fact-finding mission to ensure that such atrocities are exposed and that we can properly scrutinise the credible allegations of human rights violations. Last week at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, I met Mona Rishmawi, who leads the fact-finding mission, and I assured her of our continued support to do proper scrutiny and to hold the people who commit such crimes to account.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: M23 Group

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s previous Government reached an agreement to give substantially more money to Rwanda.

The important point here is that our focus for development assistance is on those most in need. The measures that we announced today—I was able to convey these to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda in Geneva this morning at the Human Rights Council—are as follows: we will cease high-level attendance at events hosted by the Government of Rwanda; we are freezing trade promotion activity with Rwanda; we are reviewing our existing trade infrastructure in facilitation projects; and we are pausing direct bilateral financial aid to the Government of Rwanda. We are excluding from this our support for the poorest and most vulnerable, which is not direct support; we are committed to that. We are also co-ordinating with partners on potential sanctions designations and suspending future defence training assistance to Rwanda. Our position is absolutely clear. We want to ensure that these measures achieve what they set out to do: to ensure that Rwanda commits to the peace process led by the African Union.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from my noble friend Lord Browne and then from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary warned that the conflict in the DRC

“risks spiralling into a regional conflict”.

It is already a humanitarian crisis, with 40,000 refugees fleeing to Burundi alone—the largest influx that country has had in 25 years. Are we contributing to the UNHCR’s $40.4 million appeal to provide life-saving assistance to 275,000 internally displaced people in the DRC and to support refugees and returnees across Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The real risk was that this was going to create regional instability, which is why we not only supported the Luanda process but very much welcomed the convening of the SADC-EAC meeting in Dar es Salaam last week, which set out a very clear process. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge humanitarian cost of 2.7 million people displaced—IDPs in eastern DRC. The United Kingdom is the leading humanitarian partner in DRC and the second-largest donor in the country, allocating over £62 million for this financial year for humanitarian programmes in eastern DRC. I also take seriously my responsibility as the envoy for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. That is a huge risk at the moment, and we are devoted to supporting survivors of sexual violence in that region. We are not going to rest until we ensure that all parties are focused on that agreement reached in Dar es Salaam at the end of last week.