Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
344Ayes
182Noes
Carried · majority 162 · Government won121 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 344 · No 182 · DNV 121 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 20 January 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. The amendment, passed in the House of Lords, would have required the government to renegotiate the UK-Mauritius treaty so that UK payments to Mauritius would cease if the Diego Garcia base could no longer be used for military purposes. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 344 votes to 182. The vote matters because it removes a proposed financial safeguard from the treaty implementing the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. Under the treaty, the UK makes payments to Mauritius in exchange for the right to administer and operate the Diego Garcia military base. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that an explicit payment-cessation clause was a basic protection for British taxpayers and strategic interests. The government and its supporters argued the amendment was unnecessary, pointing to an existing joint commission established by the treaty and to international treaty law as sufficient mechanisms for handling any future scenario in which the base became unusable. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 333 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government position. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against, with no MPs from those parties supporting the government. Six independents and the three Green MPs present voted with the government. Two Labour MPs voted against the government, with no vote recorded for 63 Labour MPs and 9 Liberal Democrats. The bill sits within a broader and contested legislative process: on the same day the Commons also rejected Lords Amendments 5 and 6 by similar margins, and Lords Amendments 2 and 3 were ruled out on financial privilege grounds without a vote.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the treaty as negotiated and trusting existing mechanisms such as the joint commission and international treaty law to handle any future scenario where the base becomes unusable.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring renegotiation to include an explicit payment-cessation clause if the base can no longer be used for military purposes, arguing this is a necessary financial and strategic safeguard.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
296
2
63
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
63
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
6
3
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
As government minister, defended the treaty as vital to national security, emphasizing the base's protection for 99 years, robust safeguards against adversaries, and backing from allies including the US despite Trump's morning criticism; rejected Lords amendments as unnecessary or politically motivated.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,050 words) →
Led opposition arguing the deal surrenders British sovereignty for £35 billion with no credible reason, especially after President Trump explicitly rejected it; called for withdrawal of the Bill and demanded transparency on costs and protection of Chagossian self-determination rights.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,310 words) →
Challenged the government's reliance on US support by pointing out Trump's public rejection of the deal that morning; questioned how the government can justify proceeding without addressing fundamental changes in the US position.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (388 words) →
Argued the legal justifications (ICJ judgment, UNCLOS, ITU) had fallen apart under scrutiny; criticised the government for rushing through legislation despite lack of compelling reasons and demanded a pause to consult the now-sceptical US Administration.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,316 words) →
Supported Lords amendments on cost transparency, environmental durability, and Chagossian self-determination; argued the amendments provide legitimate safeguards and called for government pause given changing geopolitical circumstances, particularly US position shift.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,368 words) →
Expressed concern that paying for something the UK owns lacks rationale; called for referendum on Chagossian return rather than surveys, and urged pause to comply with UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and respond to US position change.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (837 words) →
Defended the treaty as securing critical military assets for 99 years with full operational freedom; argued Lords amendments are unnecessary as international law and joint commissions already address contingencies; rejected claims that social media posts should drive long-term security decisions.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,255 words) →
Suggested material changes in circumstances (Trump's stance) warrant pausing implementation; implied the previous Conservative Government would never have accepted such a deal given current US opposition.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (92 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0