Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37
326
Ayes
—
92
Noes
Passed · Government won
227 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 19 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, passing the motion to disagree with the Lords by 326 votes to 92. The amendment had been introduced by the House of Lords to modify the government's approach to border security and immigration, but the Commons voted to restore the government's original provisions. **Why it matters:** By overturning this Lords amendment, the Commons upheld the government's preferred immigration and border security framework. The practical effect is that the stronger protections or modified provisions that the Lords had sought to introduce will not, at this stage, be incorporated into the legislation. This affects how the bill will govern asylum claims, border enforcement, and related immigration processes once enacted, with consequences for asylum seekers, immigration officials, and those working in the legal and support sectors around the immigration system. **The politics:** The vote followed clear party lines. All 307 voting Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs backed the government, joined by SNP members, two Greens, and several others, producing the 326-strong majority. The 92 votes against came overwhelmingly from Conservative MPs (83), with Reform UK (4) and the Democratic Unionist Party (4) also voting against, alongside two independents. Notably, the Conservatives voted with Reform and the DUP against the government, but from a position of wanting tougher rather than more protective immigration measures, making for an unusual coalition of opposition that converged on the No lobby from different directions. The SNP and Greens, who typically favour more protective asylum policies, appear to have calculated that supporting the government motion was preferable to the alternative. The vote is part of the parliamentary ping-pong (the process by which the Commons and Lords exchange amendments until agreement is reached) on a flagship government bill.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting the government's asylum policy statement as sufficient without the additional legislative requirement
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords amendment, preferring the additional safeguard to be written into the legislation rather than relying on a policy statement
418 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 227 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
276
0
86
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
83
33
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
7
2
4
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
1
0
3
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
1
0
—
Defends the government's position that Lords amendment 37 is unnecessary because the Home Office already publishes extensive migration statistics and is reviewing what additional data on foreign national offenders can be compiled and published in due course.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,108 words) →
Argues the Conservatives support transparency and that Lords amendment 37 should be passed to mandate publication of data on overseas students whose visas were revoked due to crime, as the government has stopped publishing age-dispute data and needs stronger accountability.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (702 words) →
Welcomes parts of the Bill but argues it falls short and will not support Lords amendment 37, believing mandated data publication in primary legislation is inferior to relying on bulk official statistics and independent scrutiny.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (782 words) →
Concerned that the Bill's measures on supply of articles for immigration crime may harm support agencies and charities assisting refugees and asylum seekers.Scottish National Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (198 words) →
Strongly supports the Bill, particularly Lords amendment 8 on criminalising online facilitation of illegal immigration, and welcomes the approach of relying on bulk official data rather than selective mandated publication.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (900 words) →
Enthusiastically supports the Bill and Lords amendments, particularly those criminalising online smuggling gang advertising, and welcomes the government's tough stance on organised immigration crime.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (649 words) →
Welcomes the government's efforts but emphasises the need to protect those fleeing persecution and ensure the legislation has sufficient enforcement capability.Democratic Unionist Party · Voted no · Read full speech (192 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0