MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.

There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.

Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.

As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.

Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.

While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.

National Security

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Of course, I recognise the deep anxiety that will have been felt by the residents of Whelford; it must have been a terrifying experience for them. The hon. Lady will understand that the police have to act quickly to safeguard life and have to take every risk seriously, and I am sure that that is what they sought to do in this case, but there is no getting away from the fact that, although they were doing their jobs, this would still have been unsettling for residents. I am happy to ensure that residents’ concerns are listened to. I will arrange a meeting for her with the Security Minister, in the first instance, to go through those concerns, and will ensure that I am also kept updated.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Adults in the UK seeking to access pornographic material online are now required to upload identification to pass age verification checks, yet those choosing to share extremist material or incite hate and terrorism on social media can enjoy anonymity. What consideration has the Home Office given to ensuring that social media users can be identified? My constituents, some of whom have been victims of online harassment, simply do not understand why anonymity is allowed.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that this is a matter of policy for colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that she believes there is further work to do on ensuring online safety for everyone. More generally, age verification has had a good impact in relation to the viewing of pornographic material. When it comes to material that is in the more contested space of cultural issues, we would still have the issue of where we draw the line between content that, although it might be horrible, is lawful; content that is lawful but harmful; and content that slips into illegality. Those questions remain, regardless of whether we have age verification.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and the tone of them. On his final point, yes, let me take the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to state our absolute abhorrence of antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head. I hope he knows that the Government will do everything we possibly can to stand against the forces of racism wherever they seek to rear their ugly head.

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that violence is never acceptable in pursuing a political agenda, and I am pleased that we are able to establish a consensus across the House in that regard. On his point about briefings, we briefed the shadow Minister ahead of the proscription action back in July, and as he knows, I would be happy to brief him on Privy Council terms whenever he should wish. I am also able to give him the assurances that he seeks about the work the police are doing. As a former Home Office Minister he knows that the police are operationally independent, but I assure him that the police will be taking all necessary measures to guard against future attacks. I am happy to speak to him about those matters further, and I am grateful for his support for these matters today.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

As I understand, convictions simply for displaying the name of a proscribed group have been extremely rare unless there has been clear evidence of intent to promote a group’s more extreme actions. If that is the case, and as it is clear that the acts of protest and civil disobedience seen in recent days are not acts that would ordinarily form part of a case for proscription, why do the police not simply stop the arrests?

[Dan Jarvis]

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member of this House, but I have been in the House a while and certainly that did not happen under the previous Administration. There are always opportunities to improve and local Members of Parliament, local councils and the police are all engaged when people are moved into certain areas of the country. I know that happens, although I am sure it could be better, but I am happy to raise this again with the Immigration Minister because I have not had sight of the letter that she sent to the hon. Gentleman.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

The press regularly runs stories where economic migrants are quoted describing what they believe are the benefits available to them in the UK and the work opportunities that our relatively under-regulated labour markets offer. Does the Minister agree it is time that we considered Labour’s ID cards plan, scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and its ability to reduce the UK’s pull factors for new migrants?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Government have been taking action over the past 12 months to deal with the issue of illegal working. There have been 10,031 illegal working visits, leading to 7,130 arrests—a rise of 48% and 51% respectively compared with the year before. That marks the first 12-month period in which more than 10,000 visits have taken place to start to tackle illegal working in this country.