A divisionDivision No. 98 · Monday, 10 February 2025· Commons· Immigration

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Second Reading

333Ayes
109Noes
Carried · majority 224 · Government won
205 did not vote
Aye335No110DID NOT VOTE · 205

647 Members · Aye 333 · No 109 · DNV 205 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 10 February 2025 to give the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill its Second Reading, approving the Bill in principle by 333 votes to 109. A Second Reading is the first substantive vote on a bill, allowing MPs to approve or reject its general aims before detailed scrutiny begins. The result means the Bill proceeds to further parliamentary stages. The Bill does several things at once. It repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, ending the Rwanda scheme entirely. In their place, it establishes a statutory Border Security Commander, creates new criminal offences targeting people-smuggling supply chains and preparatory acts, extends powers to seize and extract data from electronic devices, and introduces counter-terrorism-style tools such as Serious Crime Prevention Orders applied to organised immigration crime. In practical terms, the Bill shifts the government's enforcement focus from the Rwanda deterrent model toward disrupting smuggling gangs earlier in their operations. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs backed the Bill unanimously, with 331 ayes across Labour and Labour and Co-operative groupings and no votes against. All 100 voting Conservatives opposed it, as did all six voting Reform UK MPs and several smaller right-leaning and unionist parties. A small number of independents voted on both sides. The Conservative and Reform opposition rested primarily on the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent. The separately recorded reasoned amendment on the same day, which was defeated 115 to 354, captured the position of those who wanted to block the Bill entirely at this stage. No Liberal Democrat votes are recorded in the data provided.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Labour government's approach to border security: replacing the Rwanda scheme with tougher enforcement against smuggling gangs, new criminal offences for immigration crime, and restoring order to the asylum system.
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, whether on grounds that it is too weak on illegal immigration and wrong to scrap the Rwanda deterrent, or — from the left — that it does not do enough to protect asylum seekers and create safe routes.
§ 01Who voted how.442 voting Members · 205 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 Aye
298
0
63
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
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
Your 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

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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Yvette CooperSupportivePontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
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)
Chris PhilpOpposedCroydon South
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)
Lisa SmartNeutralHazel Grove
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)
Jeremy CorbynQuestioningIslington North
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)
Gavin RobinsonQuestioningBelfast East
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)
Sir Edward LeighOpposedGainsborough
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)
Preet Kaur GillSupportiveBirmingham Edgbaston
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)
Dame Karen BradleyNeutralStaffordshire Moorlands
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0