Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Labour Votes Against Releasing Migrant Crime Data
Executive Summary
The claim that “Labour votes against releasing migrant crime data” oversimplifies and mischaracterizes two distinct facts: a parliamentary amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would have required publication of sentencing data including nationality and immigration status was defeated in a whipped Division with 104 MPs in favour and 318 against, but the available summaries do not establish a clear party-line attribution for every vote; separately, a Freedom of Information request for percentages of crimes committed by migrants was refused on the basis that the Office for National Statistics does not hold the requested breakdown and directed the requester to other departments [1] [2]. Both items are factual and recent — the vote was recorded on 21 October 2025 and the FOI response dates to 8 October 2025 — but they describe different mechanisms of accountability: parliamentary amendment outcomes versus administrative data holdings and FOI practices.
1. Vote Defeated, But Who Actually Voted Which Way? — The Parliamentary Record Tells Only Part of the Story
The record for New Clause 9 to the Sentencing Bill shows a clear numerical outcome: 104 MPs supported the proposed duty to collect and publish sentencing data that would have included nationality and immigration status, while 318 MPs opposed it, meaning the clause was defeated on 21 October 2025 [1]. This numeric result is an established fact and directly contradicts any simple claim that the clause’s defeat equates to a unified Labour position to block data release. The parliamentary tally does not, by itself, prove which parties or how many MPs from any given party voted for or against; whip positions, paired votes, and individual rebellions can alter the meaning of aggregate figures. Without a full division list appended to this summary, the vote total should not be read as proof that any single party acted uniformly to “hide” data, although the aggregate outcome did prevent the statutory duty from being created [1].
2. FOI Refusal Shows Data Gaps, Not Necessarily Concealment — Administrative Limits Matter
An FOI response dated 8 October 2025 shows the Office for National Statistics declined to provide the percentage of crimes committed by migrants and illegal migrants because it stated it does not hold that specific statistic and directed the requester to the Ministry of Justice or Home Office [2]. This is not an evidentiary finding about political intent but an administrative statement about which agency holds what data. The ONS’s refusal indicates a fragmentation of statutory data responsibilities across departments and suggests that, even if ministers or MPs wanted a single, public headline figure, no single agency currently publishes it in the form requested. That administrative gap is important context when interpreting political claims about withholding or refusing to release data [2].
3. Two Different Mechanisms: Legislation Versus Data Stewardship — Don’t Conflate Them
The proposed New Clause 9 would have established a legal duty to collect and publish sentencing information including nationality and immigration status, which is a legislative route to create long-term statutory data collection [1]. In contrast, the FOI request and ONS reply expose the current operational reality of who records which pieces of criminal justice data today [2]. Conflating those two mechanisms — legislative refusal to mandate data collection and an FOI denial due to non-possession of data — conflates a democratic decision-making process with technical data stewardship. Both are relevant to public transparency, but they are distinct: one is a failed attempt to change a law; the other documents existing limits in administrative records [1] [2].
4. Political Messaging and Possible Agendas — How the Same Facts Feed Different Narratives
The defeat of an amendment and an FOI refusal create raw material for competing political narratives: critics can frame the vote and the absence of an ONS statistic as evidence that politicians are blocking transparency about migrant crime, while defenders can point to the lack of an ONS-held statistic and the complexity of data collection as reasons why a single published percentage is impractical or misleading [1] [2]. Both readings use the same factual building blocks. The available records show the amendment was defeated and that the ONS does not hold the requested breakdown; they do not prove either clandestine intent to conceal or incontrovertible administrative negligence. Identifying who benefits politically from each narrative is essential context for interpreting public claims [1] [2].
5. What’s Missing and What Comes Next — Practical Steps to Clarify Responsibility and Data Coverage
The public record as summarized here establishes the vote outcome and the ONS response but leaves two practical gaps: a full division list is required to attribute party-level responsibility for the vote, and a statement from the MoJ or Home Office would clarify whether the requested migrant-crime percentages exist in other departmental records [1] [2]. Remedying those gaps would convert aggregate outcomes and administrative refusals into clearer accountability. Publishing a statutory duty remains the legislative route to ensure consistent collection; absent that, transparency depends on proactive departmental releases or cross-departmental projects to produce defensible, published figures [1] [2].