12/01/2026
CHAGOS: If you watch the clip from the announcement of the results of the regret motion until they move on to the sentencing bill, there are three things that happened that are the source of serious concerns.
First, when the Peer calling the votes asked whether it was their Lordships wishes that the original motion, as amended be agreed, the voice of voice saying not content, while not very loud, was certainly louder than those saying content, and yet the deputy speaker moved straight to say the contents have it over the voices of people saying not content. This was so blatant that a clerk had to ask her to do it again.
Second, when the Peer calling the votes asked for the second time whether it was their Lordships wishes that the original motion be passed as amended, the response was loud from both sides. In this instance, it was clear that there had to be a division. Instead of simply calling for the division, however, her conduct generated considerable confusion. She turned slightly to the Labour side and said, 'But it's your motion' as if there was a problem and did not call a division. This made no sense because it was indeed Labour's motion that the Bill pass (as amended) and they had just said, as one would expect for their motion, 'content'. Meanwhile, no's came from the opposition side of the house, which again made sense. During this, of course, Labour were making noises to sustain the Peer calling the votes in generating a sense that something was wrong, when nothing was wrong.
Third, the Peer calling the votes then inexplicably, although feeding off the Labour benches, desperate to avoid a division, called for a vote again with the same result. By this time the Deputy Speaker saw that it would be necessary to proceed to a division but by this stage the Labour benches took over sustaining the sense that there was a problem and the Labour Chief Whip Lord Kennedy got up and said that what happened did not make sense because he implied the Conservatives (in truth the Lords is not just filled with Labour and Conservatives) had just vote against their own amendment, when they had done not such thing. They had just voted against the Labour Motion (now amended to highlight the problems with the bill thanks to the Conservative insertions regretting the Labour motion) that the Diego Garcia Bill pass its Third Reading, a bill that they had been speaking against.
Fourth, the Peer calling the votes then said shall I try one more time. By this stage those voting no had been sufficiently pressured, intimidated, confused and having spoken clearly on three occasions went silent on the fourth.
A vote should have been called after the first call for voices with debate and the generation of uncertainty.
To play this out across four calls until the outcome desired by the Government was secured is deeply disturbing.
The decision not to allow a vote cannot possible stand up to scrutiny if any member of the public watches what happened.
The vote should be allowed to take place.
