Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5

Tuesday, 20 January 2026 · Division No. 412 · Commons

347Ayes
185Noes
Passed

113 MPs did not vote

cross-cuttingGovernment wonPro Diego Garcia Treaty(Yes)Parliamentary Scrutiny Of Spending(No)Pro Government Transparency(No)Anti Mauritius Sovereignty Deal(No)

Voting Yes means

Support rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting that existing published financial information is sufficient and no additional transparency requirement is needed

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment requiring the government to publish full real-terms costs and methodology of the Diego Garcia treaty payments, arguing greater transparency for taxpayers is essential

Parliament voted on 20 January 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have required the Secretary of State to publish the total real-terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the Government Actuary's Department and the Treasury. The House of Commons voted to disagree with that amendment by 347 votes to 185, meaning the Lords' proposed change was removed from the Bill.

The practical effect of the vote was to maintain the government's position that existing published documents, including the financial exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament at the time of signature, provide sufficient transparency about the treaty's costs. The deal commits the United Kingdom to payments to Mauritius in exchange for a long-term agreement on Diego Garcia, a strategically vital joint US-UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The government argued the financial details had already been verified by the Government Actuary's Department, the House of Commons Library, the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Office for Budget Responsibility, making the Lords amendment duplicative rather than adding genuine accountability.

The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour MPs (including Labour and Co-operative members) voted overwhelmingly in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, providing the government's majority. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru voted against. Three Green MPs voted with the government. The debate took place against an unusually turbulent backdrop: President Trump had publicly expressed hostility to the deal the previous night, prompting repeated challenges from opposition MPs who argued that circumstances had materially changed.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
299 Aye/2 No

2 rebels: Graham Stringer, Peter Lamb

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/100 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/64 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
37 Aye/0 No
Independent
7 Aye/4 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/7 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3 Aye/0 No
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1 Aye/0 No
Traditional Unionist Voice
0 Aye/1 No
Ulster Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
1 Aye/0 No

2 MPs voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Priti Patel

Conservative · Witham

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Simon Hoare

Conservative · North Dorset

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

Conservative · Chingford and Woodford Green

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Dr Al Pinkerton

Liberal Democrat · Surrey Heath

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Sir Andrew Mitchell

Conservative · Sutton Coldfield

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Graham Stringer

Labour · Blackley and Middleton South

Questioning

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.

Voted No

Stephen Doughty

Labour · Cardiff South and Penarth

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Alex Ballinger

Labour · Halesowen

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Related Votes