Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
347
Ayes
—
184
Noes
Passed · Government won
118 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted 347 to 184 to reject Lords Amendment 6 to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. The amendment would have introduced an ongoing parliamentary scrutiny mechanism over the financial costs of the treaty with Mauritius governing the future of the Diego Garcia military base in the British Indian Ocean Territory. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords' position passed comfortably, removing this oversight provision from the Bill. **Why it matters:** The vote was part of a broader effort to pass the Bill enabling a treaty with Mauritius under which the UK retains operational control of the Diego Garcia base for 99 years in exchange for financial payments and the cession of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Lords Amendment 6 sought to embed a formal estimates and supply scrutiny process for the payments made under the treaty, adding a layer of ongoing parliamentary accountability for the deal's costs over its near-century lifespan. By voting it down, the Commons maintained the government's position that existing financial transparency measures, including published payment schedules, verification by the Government Actuary's Department, and assessments from the Office for Budget Responsibility, are sufficient. The vote took place on the same day as closely related votes rejecting Lords Amendment 5 (on publishing real-terms cost information) and Lords Amendment 1, all by similar margins. **The politics:** The vote split almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, and Traditional Unionist Voice MPs voted against. Two Labour MPs broke with their party to vote no. Three Green MPs backed the government. The debate was overshadowed by President Trump's publicly stated opposition to the deal the previous night, which Conservative MPs used repeatedly to challenge the government's insistence that key allies supported the agreement. The government argued that previous US endorsements remained the relevant position and that discussions with the new US administration were ongoing.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position to remove the Lords' additional condition from the Bill, backing the deal as negotiated without further parliamentary constraints imposed by the Lords
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment, wanting additional safeguards or conditions written into the legislation governing the Diego Garcia military base agreement
531 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 118 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
297
2
63
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
100
16
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
7
3
3
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