Nigel Farage said ‘you can’t vet people for what they say in the future’. (Image: Getty)
A would-be Reform UK MP told an undercover reporter Muslims could not be British and asylum seekers should be put in “concentration camps”. The comments were recorded as part of an undercover investigation by ITV that has already seen Reform accused of “appalling behaviour” and “extreme racism”. Reform has said it had opened investigations where activists or members had “clearly behaved inappropriately”, adding there was “no room for racism” in the party.
In footage due to be broadcast on Sunday, a Reform activist and aspiring MP described himself as “pretty hardline about Islam”.
He said: “If a Muslim’s prepared to de-convert, I’m happy.
“But if they want to remain faithful to Islam, then this would be, I would have disagreements, especially with, um, I mean, as far as I understand, (Reform home affairs spokesman) Zia Yusuf is a Muslim… To me… you cannot be a Muslim and British… It’s like oil and water.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Discussing people crossing the Channel in small boats, the same activist said: “In the first week of election, build concentration camps, and everyone who comes across on the Channel, you’re in there.”
Nigel Farage has said his party can’t vet people for what they say in the future (Image: Getty)
Other footage included a Reform councillor saying the party’s board was “hardline”, adding they held views that would result in their expulsion if expressed publicly.
Excerpts from the investigation released earlier in the week included councillors and candidates within Reform using racist language.
In one excerpt, black children were referred to as “animals”, while in another, a Reform member said his area had become “infested” with Asian families.
In a separate clip, Reform MP Sarah Pochin described the party as “chauvinistic”, adding: “They just exclude you if you’re a woman.”
Labour Party chairwoman Bridget Phillipson said Nigel Farage’s response to the revelations showed he was “completely unfit to lead”.
She said: “Bad apples don’t fall far from the tree. The sleaze, scandals and appalling revelations of racism and rank misogyny piling up by the day go right to the top of Reform UK.
“Nigel Farage is incapable of taking responsibility and getting his house in order because he himself shares culpability.”
Nigel Farage has defended his party saying you cannot vet people for what they say in the future (Image: Getty)
Speaking earlier in the week, Mr Farage said that while Reform carries out vetting “you can’t vet people for what they say in the future”.
He added: “I put it to you, if you went and spoke to hundreds of Conservative councillors and tried to provoke them you would find all sorts of things and all sorts of comments said.”
In a statement to ITV, Reform said: “Reform UK has improved and prioritised its vetting procedures, but from time to time, a handful of individuals who do not share our values will initially make it through vetting.
“This is the same for all organisations. However good the vetting, one cannot vet a future comment.
“There is no room for racism in Reform UK. We always respect due process of investigations and whilst these are ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases.”
Reform Activist Says Channel Migrants ‘Should Be Put in Concentration Camps’ as Pressure Mounts on Nigel Farage
Explosive Remarks Spark Fresh Questions About Reform UK
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have come under renewed scrutiny after an aspiring parliamentary candidate was recorded advocating the construction of “concentration camps” for people arriving in Britain across the English Channel.
The remarks were reported by ITV News on 17 October 2026 as part of a year-long undercover investigation into Reform UK. The activist, Jason Powell, was also recorded claiming that a person could not be both Muslim and British, describing Islam and British identity as incompatible. <Cite refs={[“turn339155search0″,”turn339155search2″,”turn339155search3”]}/>
The revelations have intensified questions about the party’s candidate-vetting procedures, its approach to immigration and how its leadership responds when people associated with the organisation make extreme statements.
The comments are particularly significant because immigration has become one of Reform UK’s defining political issues. Farage has repeatedly argued for tougher border controls and the removal of people who have no legal right to remain in the country. However, the policy debate over immigration enforcement is distinct from the language used by an individual activist to describe how migrants should be detained.
The controversy therefore raises two separate questions: how Britain should manage unauthorised Channel crossings, and what standards political parties should apply to candidates and activists who represent them.
What the Undercover Investigation Revealed
According to ITV’s report, Powell made the comments while speaking to an undercover reporter at an event organised to thank volunteers who had helped Farage secure re-election as the MP for Clacton.
Discussing people who arrive in small boats, he proposed building concentration camps during the first week of an election campaign and placing everyone who crossed the Channel in them. He also expressed hostility towards Muslims who wished to retain their faith while identifying as British. <Cite refs={[“turn339155search0″,”turn339155search2”]}/>
These were Powell’s reported personal statements, not an official policy announcement from Reform UK. Nevertheless, they prompted serious scrutiny because he was described as an aspiring parliamentary candidate who had previously sought election.
The use of the phrase “concentration camps” is especially serious given its historical associations with mass detention, persecution and the systematic abuse of people held in custody. Using such language to describe a proposed immigration policy raises questions about the treatment, rights and dignity of people who would be affected.
The comments about Muslims also go beyond a debate over immigration law. British citizenship is not conditional on abandoning Islam, and British Muslims are part of the country’s national life. A person’s religious faith does not, by itself, make them less British.
The footage has consequently drawn attention not only to immigration policy but also to the boundaries between legitimate political disagreement and statements that exclude entire groups from national belonging.
Reform UK Suspends Jason Powell
The controversy moved beyond criticism after Reform UK suspended Powell following the revelations. On 18 October, reports confirmed that the party had taken action against him while questions about the incident and its candidate-selection process continued. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search2″,”turn429039search3”]}/>
Powell had reportedly said that his views reflected those of British people generally and were not extremist. That defence does not resolve the central questions raised by the recording: whether the proposed treatment of Channel arrivals would respect their legal rights, and whether a blanket approach to detention could be justified.
Reform’s response has been that the party has improved its vetting procedures but cannot always predict what individuals will say in the future. A spokesperson said there was “no room for racism” in the party and that investigations should follow due process. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search0″,”turn429039search2”]}/>
Farage had previously promised to professionalise Reform and remove what he described as unsuitable members. The latest revelations have renewed scrutiny of whether the party’s procedures can identify candidates whose public statements may conflict with its stated standards.
Suspending an individual is a concrete response, but it does not automatically settle broader questions about recruitment and oversight. Political parties must decide how to assess candidates before they stand for office, how to investigate allegations and what disciplinary action is appropriate when serious concerns emerge.
The Difference Between Immigration Enforcement and Mass Detention
The debate over Channel crossings is legitimate and politically important. Governments must decide how to secure borders, process asylum applications, prevent trafficking and respond to people who enter the country without permission.
But those responsibilities do not remove the need to comply with domestic law and international obligations. People who arrive by small boat may have different legal circumstances: some may be seeking protection from persecution, some may have claims that are refused, and others may have no lawful basis to remain. Their cases cannot necessarily be treated as identical.
The term “concentration camp” carries historical associations with the mass detention and persecution of targeted populations. It is not a neutral description of an ordinary immigration reception centre. Powell’s proposal to detain everyone arriving by boat raises questions about whether people would have access to individual assessment, legal advice, appropriate conditions and a route to challenge decisions.
Any government seeking to detain migrants would need to establish the legal basis for detention, its purpose and duration, and the safeguards available to those affected. Indefinite detention without meaningful review would raise particularly serious concerns.
The practical details also matter. Large-scale detention would require substantial facilities, trained staff, security arrangements, healthcare provision and legal oversight. The costs and operational demands would need to be examined alongside the policy’s stated objectives.
These questions apply regardless of which party proposes tougher immigration controls. A government can pursue border enforcement without accepting every proposal made by an activist claiming to support that objective.
Farage’s Immigration Policy Under the Spotlight
The controversy has also intensified scrutiny of Reform UK’s wider immigration agenda. Farage has promised a far-reaching crackdown, including a proposed five-year suspension of asylum claims if his party wins the next general election. His plan would also involve rejecting new applications during the suspension and seeking to remove people whose claims had failed. <Cite refs={[“turn429039news11”]}/>
Reform has separately proposed a dedicated Deportation Command, modelled in part on the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, to expand the government’s capacity to detain and deport people who have no legal right to remain in Britain. The party has described illegal immigration as a national security emergency, while critics have questioned the feasibility, cost and human consequences of its proposals. <Cite refs={[“turn429039news10”]}/>
Powell’s recorded remarks should not be treated as proof that Reform’s official policies include concentration camps. The party has not presented his words as its formal policy, and it has suspended him.
Nevertheless, the incident places pressure on the leadership to explain where it draws the line between its own proposals and the language or ideas expressed by people seeking to represent it. When immigration is a central part of a party’s identity, public confidence can be affected by the way its candidates talk about migrants and asylum seekers.
For Reform, the challenge is to demonstrate that its policies are based on clear legal procedures and workable administrative plans rather than inflammatory statements.
A Wider Undercover Investigation
Powell’s comments were part of ITV’s documentary Undercover: A Year in Reform, which examined the behaviour and attitudes of people associated with the party.
The investigation also recorded other Reform-affiliated figures making racist or violent remarks. These included councillors discussing the execution of people accused of involvement in grooming gangs. Earlier footage showed Alan Feeney making racist comments about Asian residents; he subsequently resigned from his council positions and apologised for his remarks. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search0″,”turn429039search1″,”turn429039news8”]}/>
Each allegation needs to be considered on its own evidence, and statements made by individual members should not automatically be attributed to every Reform supporter. However, the number of incidents uncovered has intensified scrutiny of the party’s internal culture and vetting arrangements.
The investigation has also prompted a political dispute about the methods used by undercover journalists. Reform has criticised the reporting and said it was pursuing legal action against ITV and the production company, according to reporting on the suspension. Those claims form part of the wider dispute, but they do not remove the need to examine the recorded statements themselves. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search3”]}/>
For the public, the key questions are whether the footage has been represented accurately, how the individuals concerned respond, and what actions the party takes after investigating the incidents.
Political Reactions and the Question of Accountability
The revelations have drawn criticism from Labour figures, who argue that the remarks raise wider concerns about Reform’s leadership and its ability to control the behaviour of candidates and activists.
Labour Party chair Bridget Phillipson said the accumulating allegations reflected a problem extending beyond isolated individuals. Farage, meanwhile, has defended the limitations of vetting, arguing that a party cannot know everything a person may say in the future. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search0″,”turn429039search1”]}/>
Both the disciplinary response and the party’s vetting procedures are now part of the political debate. Critics want stronger evidence that unsuitable candidates can be identified and removed. Reform argues that its procedures have improved and that investigations must be conducted fairly.
A fair assessment requires distinguishing between three separate issues: what Powell said, what Reform’s official policies actually require, and what responsibility the party leadership has for selecting and supervising candidates.
A suspension addresses Powell’s immediate status within the party, but voters may also want to know whether the vetting process will change and how similar incidents will be handled in future. Clear procedures and consistent enforcement are important to any organisation seeking public office.
Conclusion: Immigration, Rights and Political Responsibility
The claim that Channel migrants should be placed in “concentration camps” has created a serious controversy for Reform UK. The remarks were made by aspiring parliamentary candidate Jason Powell in undercover footage reported by ITV, and Reform suspended him after the comments came to light. <Cite refs={[“turn429039search0″,”turn429039search2”]}/>
The incident has raised questions about the party’s vetting procedures, its approach to Muslim identity and the language used in debates about immigration. It has also highlighted the difference between proposing stricter border enforcement and advocating mass detention without adequately addressing legal safeguards or individual circumstances.
Farage’s party has the right to argue for substantial changes to immigration policy, just as its opponents have the right to challenge the legality, cost and consequences of those proposals. But any policy that affects asylum seekers must be assessed against its practical details, legal obligations and treatment of the people concerned.
The wider issue is one of political accountability. Candidates seeking public office are expected to explain their views, while parties are expected to select representatives who can operate within their rules and responsibilities.
For Reform UK, the next steps will matter more than statements of regret or assurances about vetting alone. How the party investigates the allegations, applies its standards and explains its immigration policies will help determine whether it can reassure voters that its proposals are both enforceable and consistent with the rule of law.