Division · No. 316Monday, 20 October 2025Commons Defence and Foreign Affairs

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Committee: Clause 2 stand part

318
Ayes
174
Noes
Passed · Government won
157 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 20 October 2025 on whether Clause 2 of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill should remain part of the legislation. Clause 2 concerns the arrangements for the Diego Garcia military base. The motion to keep the clause passed by 318 votes to 174, with the government securing a comfortable majority. **Why it matters:** Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically significant military installations in the world, hosting both British and American forces in the Indian Ocean. Clause 2 enshrines in legislation the framework governing the military base arrangements as part of a wider deal relating to sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. Keeping this clause in the bill means that the legal basis for the base's continued operation will be set in statute, providing certainty for the UK-US defence relationship and the ongoing treaty negotiations with Mauritius, which has long claimed sovereignty over the archipelago. **The politics:** The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs backed the clause unanimously, joined by Plaid Cymru and the Green Party, giving the government its majority. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against, reflecting a broad but ideologically varied opposition. The Conservatives and Reform opposed the deal on grounds of British sovereignty and strategic risk, while the Greens and some independents voting against were motivated by anti-colonial concerns. The bill's progress through committee stage on the same day included further related votes, and it passed its Third Reading by 320 to 171, suggesting stable government support throughout.

Voting Aye meant
Support Clause 2 remaining in the Bill, allowing the Treaty transferring sovereignty of British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius to proceed as drafted without requiring prior publication of legal advice or risk assessments.
Voting No meant
Oppose Clause 2 as drafted, arguing the Treaty should not come into force until Parliament has seen the government's legal advice and risk assessments justifying the cession of British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius.
§ 01Who voted how.492 voting members · 157 absent
Aye316No176DID NOT VOTE · 157

492 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 157 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
272
0
90
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
93
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
2
6
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Wendy MortonOpposedAldridge-Brownhills
Opposes the Bill as a £35 billion 'surrender' that compromises UK security, fails to protect Chagossian rights, and lacks legal justification; amendments seek transparency on costs, legal advice, and parliamentary control over payments and the marine protected area.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (5,114 words)
Stephen DoughtySupportiveCardiff South and Penarth
Defends the treaty as protecting UK security interests and achieving what Conservative negotiations could not; challenges opposition claims as misinformation and argues the US and allies support the deal.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,910 words)
Dr Al PinkertonOpposedSurrey Heath
Supports amendments requiring referendum on self-determination for Chagossians, robust reporting on marine protection and expenditure, and consultation with Chagossian communities to address historical injustices.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,728 words)
Mr Calvin BaileySupportiveLeyton and Wanstead
Characterises opposition amendments as 'wrecking amendments' designed to undermine international commitments and credibility; opposes referendums on foreign policy as demonstrated failure.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (937 words)
Stuart AndersonOpposedSouth Shropshire
Argues ceding Diego Garcia is a 'monumental strategic error' given China's rising military capability, growing Chinese submarine presence in Indo-Pacific, and decline of UK armed forces; base is essential strategic foothold.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (740 words)
Sir Edward LeighOpposedGainsborough
Supports advisory referendum for UK-based Chagossians on the treaty; frames it as moderate and sensible proposal.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,140 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