A divisionDivision No. 194 · Monday, 12 May 2025· Commons· Immigration

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Report Stage: New Clause 21

87Ayes
404Noes
Defeated · majority 317 · Government won
160 did not vote
Aye89No400DID NOT VOTE · 160

651 Members · Aye 87 · No 404 · DNV 160 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 12 May 2025 on New Clause 21, a proposed amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill during its Report Stage (the stage at which MPs debate and vote on specific changes to a bill). The amendment was defeated by 404 votes to 87. New Clause 21 sought to soften or modify elements of the government's border security proposals, taking a more rights-oriented approach to asylum and immigration policy. The defeat of New Clause 21 means the government's original provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill remain intact at this point, without the modifications that the amendment's supporters argued were necessary to protect the rights of asylum seekers. The bill itself concerns the legal framework governing border security, asylum processing and immigration enforcement, and touches directly on the lives of people arriving in the UK seeking protection. By rejecting this clause, the parliamentary majority confirmed that the bill will proceed in a stricter form on the relevant provisions, affecting how asylum claims are handled and what protections apply to those making them. The vote divided sharply along broadly ideological lines. The Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of Aye votes with 63, joined by the Scottish National Party (7), five Labour MPs voting against their whip, five Independents, four Greens and three Plaid Cymru members. The government's Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly against the amendment, as did all Conservatives, all eight Reform UK members and the one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. The five Labour rebels represent a notable though small act of defiance on the government benches. The vote sits within a broader pattern on the same day, with several other amendments also defeated by similarly large margins before the bill passed its Third Reading by 316 votes to 95, confirming the government's firm control over the bill's final shape.

Voting Aye meant
Support creating safe and legal asylum routes for people from countries where none currently exist, reducing reliance on dangerous crossings
Voting No meant
Oppose this particular mechanism for creating safe routes, either favouring the government's existing approach or rejecting expanded legal migration pathways
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting Members · 160 absent

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
5
280
76
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
80
36
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
29
13
Independent
5
1
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
8
0
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0
Your Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Dame Angela EagleSupportiveWallasey
Government must balance security with humanity; repealing failed Conservative legislation while introducing robust immigration controls; strengthening enforcement against people-smuggling gangs; each asylum case must be judged on meritsLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,291 words)
Jeremy CorbynOpposedIslington North
Asylum seekers are victims of conflict and human rights abuse; the world must address root causes of displacement rather than treating migrants as threatsIndependent · Voted aye · Read full speech (139 words)
Lee AndersonOpposedAshfield
All illegal migrants should be immediately detained and deported; treats asylum seekers as security threatsReform · Voted no · Read full speech (94 words)
Luke TaylorQuestioningSutton and Cheam
Asylum seekers should be allowed to work after 3 months rather than 12 to enable integration and reduce public costsLabour · Voted aye · Read full speech (205 words)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
Border security cooperation between UK, Ireland and Northern Ireland authorities must be strengthened to prevent illegal immigration via the Irish borderDUP · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (263 words)
Chris VinceSupportiveHarlow
Previous Government's delays to asylum processing created huge backlogs; current Government must untangle this inherited chaosLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (98 words)
Sir John HayesOpposedSouth Holland and The Deepings
System is being gamed for economic migration; tough enforcement is necessary to prevent abuse of asylum claimsConservative · Voted no · Read full speech (99 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0