Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory
103Ayes
284Noes
Defeated · majority 181 · Government won258 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 103 · No 284 · DNV 258 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 28 January 2026, the House of Commons voted on an Opposition Day motion (a non-binding motion brought by the opposition party to force a debate and signal disagreement with government policy) concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Islands. The motion was defeated by 284 votes to 103. The vote reflects the ongoing parliamentary dispute over the Labour government's negotiations to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which would include the strategically significant Diego Garcia military base. The motion did not have the force of law but served as a public marker of the opposition's position, pressuring the government to change course on a deal that critics argue compromises British and allied strategic interests in the Indian Ocean. The Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of the motion, joined by five Reform UK MPs, two Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, making this largely a right-leaning bloc against the government. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted solidly against, 279 in total, with no recorded rebels. The SNP had no votes recorded. This vote sits within a dense cluster of related divisions: just eight days earlier, on 20 January 2026, the Commons voted three times to disagree with House of Lords amendments to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, each time by majorities of around 160, indicating the government has repeatedly seen off legislative challenges on this issue.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's position on the British Indian Ocean Territory, signalling concern or opposition to the government's deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius
Voting No meant
Back the Labour government's approach to the British Indian Ocean Territory negotiations, rejecting the opposition's motion as a political attack on ongoing diplomacy
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
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
—
1
4
8
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
Your Party
—
0
1
1
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
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0