Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Second Reading
333Ayes
109Noes
Carried · majority 224 · Government won205 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 333 · No 109 · DNV 205 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 10 February 2025 to give the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill its Second Reading, meaning the bill passed its first major parliamentary hurdle and will proceed to more detailed scrutiny. The vote was 333 in favour and 109 against. An earlier vote on the same day rejected a Conservative reasoned amendment (a formal objection to the bill's principles) by 354 votes to 115, clearing the way for the main vote. The bill aims to strengthen border security by placing the Border Security Command on a statutory footing, introducing counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue people-smuggling networks, targeting supply chains and preparatory acts linked to organised immigration crime, and repealing sections of the previous government's Illegal Migration Act 2023 and Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. It also restores the ability of asylum seekers who arrived irregularly to apply for indefinite leave to remain and eventually citizenship, reversing restrictions introduced under the Conservatives. In practical terms the bill affects how asylum claims are processed, how enforcement agencies coordinate, and what criminal penalties apply to those organising irregular migration. All 332 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs present voted in favour, along with one Ulster Unionist MP and two independents, while all 100 Conservatives present and all six Reform UK MPs voted against, joining three independents and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP in the no lobby. The Liberal Democrats, who hold 72 seats, abstained entirely by not voting. The vote sits in a longer political context in which successive governments have struggled to reduce small boat crossings, with the Conservatives' Rwanda deterrent scheme now being unwound and the new government arguing its enforcement-led approach is more effective.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Labour government's approach to tackling illegal immigration through tougher enforcement against criminal gangs and reforming the asylum system
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, either finding it too tough on migrants and asylum seekers, or insufficiently robust compared to previous Conservative approaches
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 Aye
298
0
63
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
—
3
2
9
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
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 aye · 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 no · 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_vote_recorded · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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