Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
347Ayes
184Noes
Carried · majority 163 · Government won118 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 347 · No 184 · DNV 118 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 20 January 2026 to reject Lords amendment 6 to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 347 votes to 184. The amendment would have introduced an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the UK-Mauritius treaty, including a requirement for parliamentary approval of future payments. By rejecting it, the Commons sided with the government's position that such payments should follow established prerogative practice and be charged to the Consolidated Fund under the authority of Supply Acts. The vote has direct bearing on how Parliament will oversee the financial commitments the UK has made under the Chagos deal. The treaty involves long-term payments to Mauritius in exchange for continued UK and US access to the Diego Garcia military base. Those who backed the amendment argued that the scale and duration of the financial commitment warranted explicit parliamentary approval at each stage; those who opposed it argued that existing mechanisms are sufficient and that adding a separate approval requirement would cut across centuries of constitutional practice on treaty financing. The division followed strict party lines. All 334 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. All 100 voting Conservatives, 62 Liberal Democrats, seven Reform UK members, five Democratic Unionist Party members and four Plaid Cymru members voted against. Three Green MPs and two MPs listed under Your Party voted with the government. Two Labour MPs had no vote recorded, the only exception to near-total Labour unity. The vote closely mirrored the result earlier the same day on Lords amendment 5, which also concerned treaty costs and was rejected 347 to 185.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting that treaty payments should follow normal prerogative practice without requiring separate parliamentary approval for each payment — backing the government's position that existing scrutiny mechanisms are sufficient.
Voting No meant
Oppose rejecting the Lords amendment, arguing Parliament should retain explicit oversight and approval of future payments under the Chagos treaty, and that greater financial transparency and accountability is warranted given the scale and duration of the commitment.
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
297
2
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
6
2
5
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
Whipped No
0
4
0
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