Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
347
Ayes
—
185
Noes
Passed · Government won
113 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
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.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting that existing published financial information is sufficient and no additional transparency requirement is needed
Voting No meant
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
532 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 113 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
299
2
61
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
100
16
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
7
4
2
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
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
—
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