Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of those young people in Yeovil. We need to be careful about some of the rhetoric around the subject and to always have victims in mind when we have these conversations. Yes, there must be robust challenge to ensure that we get this right and that we push the measures we are taking to the furthest point possible to make sure we keep people safe, but we must also respect the work of our probation teams who are monitoring offenders in the community and working to keep people safe. There are a range of offences that are excluded from the progression model, so those offenders are not eligible for progression. We have increased the tagging of offenders, even where they are excluded from progression but whose crimes are of a nature that we would want them to be tagged and monitored post-release in any event. I want to provide reassurance to young people: we are working at pace and our very hardest to ensure that we keep the public safe, and we manage offenders as they reintegrate back into the community.

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

One former Conservative Minister wrote a book that discussed the prison system’s failure to reform. Will the Minister confirm that she has looked at Rory Stewart’s book and his concerns that the Department lacked project management capabilities and support from the Treasury, and required a longer tenure for Prison Ministers? Would she recommend the book to the shadow Minister?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed, Conservative Members have made a plethora of public commentary on such issues. As well as the book my hon. Friend mentioned, the former Prime Minister herself and her policy chief admitted that not enough prison places were built. I would be interested not only in whether Conservative Members might want to read the aforementioned book, but in whether they will apologise for the failures of the previous Government—this would be a good opportunity to do that.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

When debating this issue, I crudely used to think of Greenpeace activists taking on multinationals or journalists writing books about oligarchs—Erin Brockovich-style figures exposing injustice—but, as has already been raised, SLAPPs are far more relevant to ordinary people than these cases indicate. Those people include my constituent Jeff Thomson.

Jeff moved to Penrith to enjoy his retirement. What he did not expect was the Penrith pong, a foul odour that periodically hangs over the town. Many residents believe the smell is linked to the Omega Proteins rendering plant operated by Leo Group. The company disputes that it is the only source of the odour. Jeff set up a Facebook group called Fresh AIR for Penrith—a place for residents to moan about the pong, share information and learn how to make complaints to the Environment Agency. For running a Facebook page, Jeff received his first legal letter in February 2023 and found himself living under the threat of a defamation claim, with all the stress and fear of legal costs that that brings, all because he spoke up on an issue that he and his neighbours cared about.

When I was elected, I said publicly that I wanted to tackle the pong. I grew up in Cumbria and people have talked about the smell for decades, so I was genuinely surprised by how many people warned me not to get involved. People said I might be sued, but until I learned about Jeff’s case and the basis of the action against him, I dismissed those warnings as absurd. I will be honest: when I was first elected, Jeff got right under my skin. Every MP has someone in their inbox with legitimate concerns who is awkward, and some who are extremely awkward. Jeff is one of them. He is very demanding and good at irritating people, but over time I have come to see Jeff in a different light.

I now cast Jeff in the tradition of awkward people: the people who pester, who prod and who refuse to let things go. The truth is that without people like Jeff—and there is at least one in every town in my patch—nothing changes. Communities rely on them to keep pushing until someone listens. Jeff also had the courage to fight back, and in June 2026, more than three years after the first legal letter, Omega Proteins and Leo Group finally issued a notice of discontinuance. They agreed to pay Jeff’s legal costs, and he is now free to speak about what he describes as a living hell. But for every Jeff, there will be many out there now who are simply gagged, and their stories will not be told as part of this debate. That is why his story matters. His case shows exactly why we need an anti-SLAPP law.

The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and Index on Censorship helped my constituent in ways I never could, but they need us to act now. They have set out one crucial step that would have protected Jeff: a simple early dismissal mechanism based on objective signs of abuse—not a subjective test about what was in the claimant’s mind, not years of litigation; just a clear, fast filter that lets a judge say, “This is a public interest issue. This is a citizen speaking about their community. This case should not proceed.” If that mechanism had existed, Jeff would not have spent three years under threat, he would not have faced the stress, cost or fear, and the company would not have been able to use litigation as a tool of intimidation.

No constituent should fear being sued simply for speaking about an issue that they believe is wrong. We must ensure that our legal system protects public participation rather than punishes it.