Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37
326Ayes
92Noes
Carried · majority 234 · Government won227 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 326 · No 92 · DNV 227 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The Commons voted on 19 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 326 votes to 92. The amendment, added by the House of Lords, would have placed a statutory duty on the government to publish immigration and asylum data. By voting to disagree, the Commons removed that legal requirement from the Bill. The practical effect is that the government will not be bound by law to publish immigration and asylum statistics, though ministers said during the debate they intend to publish a comprehensive dataset voluntarily. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that a statutory duty provides a stronger and more reliable guarantee of transparency, allowing Parliament and the public to hold the government to account on immigration figures. The government's position was that a legal obligation was unnecessary given its stated intention to publish the data anyway, and that the Bill should pass without this clause. Labour MPs voted uniformly for the government's position, with 276 Labour and 31 Labour and Co-operative members voting aye and none voting no. Conservative MPs moved in the opposite direction, with 83 voting no and none voting aye. Reform UK and the Democratic Unionist Party also voted no, each supplying four votes against. The Scottish National Party and the Green Party, despite generally opposing the government on immigration matters, voted with the government on this division, with the SNP casting eight aye votes. The result reflected tight party discipline on the Labour side and a cross-bench opposition from Conservatives, Reform UK, and the DUP that was insufficient to defeat the motion.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that voluntary data publication is sufficient, rejecting a Lords-imposed statutory duty to publish immigration and asylum statistics
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring the government to publish immigration and asylum data by law, arguing statutory transparency obligations are needed to hold the government to account
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
276
0
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
83
33
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped 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
Your Party
—
2
0
0
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
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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