A divisionDivision No. 422 · Wednesday, 28 January 2026· Commons· Defence and Foreign Affairs

Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory

103Ayes
284Noes
Defeated · majority 181 · Government won
258 did not vote
Aye105No286DID NOT VOTE · 258

645 Members · Aye 103 · No 284 · DNV 258 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 28 January 2026, the House of Commons voted on an Opposition Day motion -- a debate and vote initiated by the Conservative opposition -- opposing the government's handling of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The motion called on Parliament to reject the ceding of sovereignty over BIOT to Mauritius, opposed the proposed £34.7 billion payment to Mauritius, and argued that the government's approach breached a 1966 defence agreement with the United States. The motion was defeated by 284 votes to 103. The vote concerns the future of Diego Garcia, a strategically vital military base in the Indian Ocean used jointly by the UK and the United States. The government has been pursuing a deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands -- which form part of BIOT -- to Mauritius, subject to an agreement that would allow the base to continue operating. Critics argue this arrangement would cost the British taxpayer £34.7 billion, compromise national security, and undermine the UK's treaty obligations to the United States. The government's position, reflected in the No vote, is that its approach to BIOT is legally sound and in the UK's strategic interest. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 279 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, while 96 of the 116 voting Conservatives supported the motion, joined by five Reform UK MPs, two Democratic Unionist Party MPs, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and one independent. The SNP abstained entirely. The debate sits within a broader and ongoing legislative fight over the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, which the Lords had sought to amend, only for the Commons to disagree with those amendments in votes held just eight days earlier on 20 January 2026.

Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's motion criticising or seeking to block the government's approach to the British Indian Ocean Territory, including opposing ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition motion, backing the Labour government's negotiated position on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands deal
§ 01Who voted how.387 voting Members · 258 absent

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 No
0
249
112
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Priti PatelOpposedWitham
Opposes the deal as a 'surrender' of sovereignty that breaches the 1966 UK-US treaty, costs taxpayers £35 billion, risks national security by enabling Chinese/Russian influence, and fails to protect Chagossian rights.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,237 words)
Seema MalhotraSupportiveFeltham and Heston
Defends the deal as necessary to protect Diego Garcia from legal challenge; guarantees full UK operational control, has US and Five Eyes support, and addresses international law obligations.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,798 words)
Calum MillerNeutralBicester and Woodstock
Criticises both Government and Conservatives for inadequate engagement with Chagossian rights; calls for referendum, binding Mauritian guarantees, and financial safeguards; notes US negotiation failure.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,252 words)
Tim RocaSupportiveMacclesfield
Supports the deal as necessary to remove ambiguity over Diego Garcia that could invite Chinese exploitation; argues it protects UK security interests and maintains Five Eyes alignment.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,223 words)
Dr Andrew MurrisonOpposedSouth West Wiltshire
Opposes the deal; notes changed circumstances (Trump opposition, Pelindaba treaty concerns, Mauritius Deputy PM's nuclear exclusion statement) justify pausing; criticises post-colonial guilt motivation.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,197 words)
Dr Kieran MullanOpposedBexhill and Battle
Opposes as strategic self-sabotage; argues China will ignore treaties if suited, ICJ judge bias exists, and the deal signals weakness to adversaries and encourages Argentina on Falklands.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,237 words)
Sir Iain Duncan SmithOpposedChingford and Woodford Green
Opposes the deal; raises Pelindaba treaty and nuclear weapons concerns; links to international law hypocrisy; questions government legal competence.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,247 words)
John SlingerSupportiveRugby
Defends the deal; notes Conservatives began 85% of negotiations and admitted legal necessity in 2022; accuses Opposition of hypocrisy and political opportunism on security.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (849 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0