Reform candidate filmed saying asylum seekers should be put in ‘concentration camps’

The Reform activist made two highly controversial proposals during an undercover ITV investigation. He described himself as “pretty hardline about Islam” and said he was happy if a Muslim “de-convert”. But he claimed that someone who remained faithful to Islam could not also be British. He compared the identities to “oil and water”.

He then discussed asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. His proposal was blunt: “In the first week of election, build concentration camps, and everyone who comes across on the Channel, you’re in there.” The remarks were recorded while he was an aspiring Reform MP who had not been publicly identified.

The comments matter because they combine hostility towards a religious group with a proposal for mass detention. They came amid wider ITV revelations about racist language by Reform candidates and councillors. Reform said it was investigating inappropriate behaviour and that there was “no room for racism” in the party.

A concentration camp is a place where authorities detain people because they belong to a particular group, nationality, religion or political category. The term is strongly associated with mass, coercive detention and abusive conditions. It does not necessarily mean people have been convicted of crimes. That is why using the phrase for asylum seekers signals collective punishment and raises grave human-rights concerns.

Ordinary immigration detention has a different stated purpose. In the UK, officials may detain particular people for limited periods while identity, removal or immigration decisions are handled. Decisions should be individual, lawful and reviewable. Detention is not supposed to be automatic simply because someone seeks asylum.

The distinction depends on practice, not just labels. Indefinite or mass detention, poor treatment, no meaningful legal review, or targeting people solely as a group can make a system resemble internment. The activist’s proposal was therefore much broader than ordinary case-by-case immigration detention and would conflict with basic safeguards.

The article does not provide annual figures for asylum applications or Channel crossings. Official UK statistics for 2024 recorded about 84,846 asylum applications, counting applications rather than every person connected with them. The total can look different depending on whether dependants or individual applicants are counted.

Small-boat crossings are a separate measure. In 2024, 36,816 people were recorded arriving in the UK by small boat across the English Channel. This counts detected arrivals, not everyone who attempted a crossing or every person who later claimed asylum. The two figures therefore should not be added together.

The numbers also change from year to year. They do not by themselves show whether an individual claim is valid, whether someone is legally entitled to protection, or what happens after arrival. The article’s importance is about political language and proposed treatment, while official statistics provide the broader scale.

The comments could deepen questions about Reform UK’s candidate selection and political culture. They were not isolated in the investigation: ITV also reported racist descriptions of black children and Asian families. That creates a wider reputational problem than one individual’s misconduct. Opponents can argue that the party has failed to control its candidates and activists.

The immediate mechanism is accountability. Reform may investigate or remove people, while candidates and councillors may resign. Alan Feeney resigned after racist comments were revealed. Labour chair Bridget Phillipson said Nigel Farage was “completely unfit to lead”, increasing pressure on the party leadership to respond clearly.

The electoral effect is uncertain. Strong action could show that the party’s stated standards have consequences. Weak or delayed action could reinforce accusations that racism reaches the party’s mainstream. Voters, candidates and potential supporters may judge Reform not only by its policies, but by how it handles misconduct and whether its vetting appears credible.

Reform UK says it vets candidates and members and has improved and prioritised those procedures. It also says a handful of people who do not share the party’s values can still initially pass through vetting. The party presents this as a risk faced by all organisations, rather than proof that screening can be perfect.

The key mechanism is timing. Vetting can examine information available before selection, such as records, statements or other warning signs. It cannot directly observe every future conversation, private belief or later public remark. Farage said, “you can’t vet people for what they say in the future.”

That limitation does not remove the need for strong checks. Parties can set clear standards, investigate complaints, suspend people, reject candidates and remove members when evidence emerges. Reform said there was “no room for racism” and that investigations were under way. Its credibility will depend on whether those processes lead to consistent action.

An asylum seeker is someone who has asked for international protection but whose claim has not yet been finally decided. A refugee is someone recognised as meeting the Refugee Convention definition: they cannot safely return because of a well-founded fear of persecution for a protected reason. Recognition gives the person a different legal position from an undecided applicant.

“Illegal migrant” is not one precise status in UK law. It is commonly used for someone who enters or remains without the required permission, but the facts matter. A person may have entered irregularly and still have a right to claim asylum. Making an asylum claim does not automatically prove it is genuine, nor does irregular arrival automatically settle its outcome.

The process therefore matters. Officials assess the claim, and applicants can usually appeal or seek review under the relevant rules. If protection is refused and no lawful basis to stay exists, removal may follow. Public debate becomes misleading when it treats every asylum seeker as already proven to be an unlawful migrant.

In the UK, freedom of religion and belief is protected by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, especially the right to hold and practise beliefs. Democratic politics also protects expression and debate. These rights allow criticism of religions and public policy, but they do not give unlimited permission to target people because of their faith or ethnicity.

Other rules provide limits. The Equality Act 2010 restricts discrimination in areas such as employment and services because of protected characteristics, including religion or belief and race. The Public Order Act 1986 contains offences involving threatening, abusive or insulting conduct intended or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. The exact legal test depends on the words, setting and intention.

Political parties must therefore distinguish policy argument from group-based exclusion or incitement. A party can discipline members under its own rules even where criminal prosecution is not possible. Courts, regulators, police and voters each provide different forms of accountability in a democratic system.