UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl) (Valedictory Speech)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and thus to play my final set. I would like in particular to congratulate my noble kinswoman on the maiden speech she has just delivered for its perception, skill and elegance. For full disclosure, I ought myself to declare to the House that she is my daughter. Although our careers have not always taken the same path—Oxford against Cambridge, for example—we tend to take similar positions, and our relationship casts an interesting and somewhat varied slant on debates to come shortly on qualification by inheritance in this House. I shall not dilate on that further, not least because I am minded of the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who once remarked that valedictories should be shorter than inaugurals.

I say at the beginning of the substance of my speech that I have grown increasingly attracted to the traditions attached to this House and Parliament in general. This is not out of antiquarian reverence— although I happen to be a fellow of that learned society—but because they counterbalance short-term political pressures and media activity.

My own first political memory was as a very small child meeting Lord Addison, who served on an agricultural board with my father, had been a Cabinet Minister in the First World War and led this House during the post-1945 Government. Later, as a schoolboy, I went to the Gallery of another place, and I was privileged to spot Churchill, then in his last term, at about my current age, take his seat and listen in. More widely, I am a child of the television age, as my family were very early adopters, and I remember highlights of the London Olympics of 1948. The post-war decade was also identified with the development of nuclear weapons, and I took a rather precocious interest in civil defence and emergency planning. Our wartime generation grew up during the long withdrawal from empire, of which a remaining fragment is the subject of today’s debate. Our record as a nation in this process over the last 80 years, while wholesome, has not been wholly blameless, and it is right to be as rigorous and transparent as we can in analysing it.

I want now to thank all those professionals who have guided me on my way, including, initially, the civil servants who were colleagues of mine when I was approached on the farm by my noble friend Lord Jopling and drafted in—as, I hope, a respectable spad—to help invent the system of milk quotas, and then other officials who served me when I went on into ministerial posts. In particular, in relation to parliamentary staff, I single out those involved with the Committee Office here. As has been mentioned, I found myself chairing the European Union Committee for a seven-year stretch, nearly bisected by the Brexit referendum. Here, I was greatly assisted not merely by the staff but, of course, by the expertise and collegiality of my colleagues from all parts of the House.

Now it is fashionable to follow conspiracy theories and to assume that whoever politicians have in their sights at the moment are to blame for our current ills, when the reality is that we are wrestling, as a nation, with the pressures of demography at the expense of growth. More widely, we should reflect on the perils of political “othering” and the wilful selection of enemies, whether it is on a class, regional, ethnic or demographic basis, because I still think that we have to work through disagreements together, as one nation. We should also be aware that constant pressure to regulate more may reflect indirectly the lost agency we have ourselves to some extent wilfully surrendered. Whatever we can do to empower local initiatives, interests and communities behind issues facing us as a nation, and a world, should be actively considered.

I conclude with two final points. The first springs from my term of service to the European committee. I recognise that there is little inclination to rerun Brexit, but I welcome efforts being made to re-establish closer relations. Our committee broke much fresh ground after the vote in drawing attention to outstanding problems, not merely on the trade side but also involving constitutional matters, including the problem of the Irish land border, the status of the Crown dependencies and, of course, the British Overseas Territories. Now, almost five years since the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, I notice that mutual residence issues, to mention one, are about to recur. To judge by the experience of Switzerland, closer association with the EU will involve virtually continuous renegotiation.

I add here that it is important to maintain an emphasis on the teaching of modern foreign languages, not confined to Europe. To be in a negotiating room, of which I have a little experience, or equally or more importantly, in the margins of that negotiating room, and to drop the occasional well-judged phrase into the mix engenders a certain empathy or at least wary respect. To be completely au fait, as our diplomats are, is of course very consequential. I also think that we should sometimes lift our horizon from bare texts and competence to wider issues and passions worldwide. To mention two sports in which I have always taken an interest, Formula 1 and the Premiership have a wide popular domestic and international appeal, and as a nation we are rather good at them.

In conclusion, I will say a word about the rule of law. I defer to my noble kinswoman’s expertise in this area, and that of other noble Lords. We should not allow this debate to become polarised or a proxy for other political debates. We need to get stuck in to achieve negotiated improvements when circumstances change, and we need to make use of the margin of appreciation when we must. We need to put more attention—as a legislature and as government—on the subject. However, there are continuing merits in the rules-based international order, because those who break the rules—or merely threaten to do so—may one day find that they have suddenly excluded themselves from the order which underpins their growth and continuing prosperity.