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
Parliament voted on 10 February 2025 to reject a Conservative reasoned amendment that would have blocked the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill at its Second Reading (the first substantive vote on a bill in the Commons). The amendment was defeated by 354 votes to 115, allowing the Bill to proceed to further parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, replacing them with a new framework that includes a statutory Border Security Commander, counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue people-smuggling gangs, and new criminal offences covering activities such as supplying information used in immigration crime and endangering lives during sea crossings. Defeating this amendment clears the way for those measures to advance through Parliament. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 100 Conservative MPs who voted backed the amendment, joined by seven Reform UK MPs, five Democratic Unionists, and two Independents. Against the amendment were 302 Labour MPs, 33 Labour and Co-operative MPs, eight SNP MPs, four Greens, three Plaid Cymru MPs, and four Independents. No Conservative or Reform MP voted against the amendment, and no Labour or Labour Co-operative MP voted for it. The vote reflects a direct contest between the government's decision to dismantle Rwanda-era legislation and the Conservative opposition's defence of it.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Bill at Second Reading, implying opposition to repealing the Rwanda legislation and scepticism about the Government's alternative approach to channel crossings and asylum.
Voting No meant
Support the Bill proceeding, backing Labour's approach of dismantling the Rwanda scheme, creating new criminal powers against smuggling gangs, and restoring 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
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
33
9
Independent
—
2
4
8
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
Your Party
—
0
2
0
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
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