Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Reasoned Amendment on Second Reading
115Ayes
354Noes
Defeated · majority 239 · Government won177 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 115 · No 354 · DNV 177 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 10 February 2025 on a reasoned amendment (a formal motion to decline the bill a second reading, citing fundamental objections to its principles) to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The amendment was defeated by 354 votes to 115, meaning the bill was allowed to proceed through Parliament rather than being blocked at this early stage. A reasoned amendment at second reading is one of the few procedural tools available to the opposition to signal outright rejection of a bill's underlying principles before detailed scrutiny begins. Its defeat means the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill continues through the legislative process. The bill covers border enforcement, asylum procedures and immigration powers, and its passage to the committee stage means those measures will be examined and potentially amended line by line, but its fundamental direction of travel has been confirmed by the Commons. The vote divided largely along expected lines, with the Conservatives providing the bulk of the 115 ayes alongside Reform UK and the Democratic Unionist Party. Labour, the Labour and Co-operative Party, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru all voted against the amendment, meaning a broad coalition ranging from left to centre supported allowing the bill to continue. The separate second reading vote held the same day passed 333 to 109, confirming the Commons' overall support for the bill. There were no notable Labour rebels.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the bill, signalling opposition to the government's approach to border security and immigration reform
Voting No meant
Support the bill proceeding, backing Labour's plan to tackle illegal immigration, criminal gangs, and restore order to the asylum system
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
302
59
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
33
9
Independent
—
2
5
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
7
0
0
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The Bill strengthens border security by establishing the Border Security Command on statute, introducing counter-terrorism-style powers against smuggling gangs, improving intelligence sharing, and clearing the asylum backlog to enable returns; it scraps the failed Rwanda scheme which cost £700m and sent only four people.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,404 words) →
The Bill is a 'border surrender' that repeals mandatory removal obligations, creates a pathway to citizenship for illegal migrants, and removes the Rwanda deterrent; small boat crossings have increased 28% under Labour and only 4% of arrivals are being removed, so the Bill will worsen the problem.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,671 words) →
While supporting some counter-gang measures, the Bill fails to expand safe and legal routes, continues the indefensible detention of children, lacks a proper modern slavery strategy, and misses opportunities for cross-border EU cooperation to truly disrupt smuggling networks.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,231 words) →
While opposing criminal gangs, the government should establish sustainable safe routes for asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution, recognizing the massive positive contributions migrants make to UK society.Independent · Voted no · Read full speech (242 words) →
The government's uniform UK-wide immigration policy must apply throughout the entirety of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, consistent with the Windsor Framework and recent High Court judgments.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (149 words) →
The only effective deterrent is detention and deportation (proven by Australia); the Bill is ineffective because it scraps Rwanda; ultimately the UK may need to exit the European Convention on Human Rights to regain control over returns.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,053 words) →
The Bill's provisions on 3D-printed firearms and counter-terror powers are vital, and the government deserves credit for removing more foreign criminals and immigration offenders in seven months than the previous government achieved in years.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,191 words) →
While supporting enforcement efforts, there is no silver bullet; illegal migration is a global problem requiring multilateral coordination at the UN level, and the devil will be in implementation details of measures like 'endangering life at sea'.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,115 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0