Public Confidence in the Police

Jo White Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), on his recent promotion, and look forward to working with him in the weeks, months and years ahead. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing the debate, and to all who have spoken.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe said at the outset, I am not the Policing Minister. The Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), needs to be elsewhere at this difficult time. It is very much my aim to prove a capable stand-in, but I hope Members will forgive me for any gaps in policy knowledge. Although I cannot match the Minister for Policing and Crime in that regard, I can certainly acknowledge the unique and critical role played by the police in the life of our country.

Thousands of men and women go to work day in, day out with a single aim: to keep us, their fellow citizens, safe. Theirs is public service of the very highest form, and it can be performed only by those who possess exceptional courage and are willing to face risks that the rest of us could barely imagine. We had a terrible illustration of that recently in Cleveland, as we have heard, when two officers lost their lives in an awful crash on the A66.

My thoughts remain with the families, colleagues and friends of PC Blades and PC Clough, who served with courage and commitment to the last. Their service and sacrifice remind us that policing is not merely a profession; it is, as the Home Secretary said in the House last week, a calling. Those who answer it deserve our support, respect and gratitude. To perform their duties effectively, the police require our confidence and our trust. That brings me to the focus of the debate, in which the range of themes and topics covered speaks to the breadth of the subject matter. There are so many different aspects of policing for which public confidence is a live issue. Let me deal with the issues that Members have highlighted.

Speak to any frontline officer and they will say that our current policing system is no longer fit for purpose. The current policing model is neither national nor local enough to respond to the public’s concerns about theft and antisocial behaviour. This Government are determined to change that, which is why, in the police reform White Paper, we have set out the most significant changes to policing in nearly 200 years, to create a system that is better equipped to tackle modern threats while remaining responsive to local communities.

Our reforms will rebuild public confidence by delivering a new model for policing with a clear focus on cutting and preventing crime, strengthening local policing, raising standards and ensuring that national and specialist police services can be accessed by all communities. A new national police service will strengthen our ability to tackle serious and organised crime threats to national security. The national police service will give policing the tools, technology and capability needed to tackle crime wherever it occurs.

[Adam Dance]

Thank you for being here today. Will you commit to asking the Policing Minister to meet my local police force and me to discuss the custody unit, which is a huge issue in my constituency? The decision was made well before my time, but it is affecting the community throughout south Somerset.

[Jo White]

Thank you for your question. You made that request in your earlier contribution—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister, but Members should not use the word “you” to refer to each other. They should speak through the Chair, who is here to adjudicate, so that the debate does not become too fractious.

[Jo White]

Thank you for correcting me, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) asked earlier about meeting the Policing Minister, and I am happy to pass that request on to her.

We will introduce stronger national standards through the national police service, ensuring that the service the public receives is more consistent. To respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the reform programme will enable a new funding formula that will include policing areas such as Cleveland.

In 2010, the number of officers in full-time employment was 143,734. During the period of austerity under the previous Government, officer numbers dropped by over 20,000 to a low of 122,405 in 2018. From 2019, the previous Government funded forces to hastily increase officer numbers, but that has led to officers being hired—and, in some cases, put in desk jobs—to meet arbitrary headcounts. The rush to recruit also led to a situation in which over 35% of officers had less than five years’ experience, placing a further strain on forces.

The Government are focused on what the police are doing, not just on officer numbers. That is why we have scrapped the officer maintenance grant and focused on rebuilding neighbourhood policing, with over 3,800 more police and PCSOs now where the public want to see them—out in neighbourhoods, proactively preventing crime and dealing with antisocial behaviour.

[Blake Stephenson]

I met with my force in Bedfordshire over the summer and spent a couple of days with the neighbourhood policing teams. One of the challenges they have is that their officers often get dragged off neighbourhood policing to deal with more complicated policing operations because there is a higher risk and they need to prioritise their work. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents, and all Members’ constituents, that under the neighbourhood policing guarantee, the new neighbourhood policing officers will not be hired and then re-tasked with other work in their police forces?

[Jo White]

The commitment is to deliver 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, which will give us the capacity to ensure that they can be focused on the role they are employed to do.

Since the election, the Government have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion. This year funding to police forces has increased to its highest cash level of up to £18.5 billion—a 4.5% cash increase compared with the previous year. That means that all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), since March 2025 the Met has grown by 607 neighbourhood officers. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Met. In 2026-27 the Met will receive up to £4 billion in funding, which is an increase of £175 million.

In addition, we are supporting policing to deliver £354 million of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament through the police efficiency and collaboration programme, but we cannot stop there. The police funding system we inherited was complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design. Many PCCs, MPs and policing partners have complained that the police funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with those new structures.

[Max Wilkinson]

I asked a specific question about the alignment of boundaries. In my constituency of Cheltenham, we are served by Gloucestershire police. We are apparently due to get a regional mayor with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. We are served by the health board for Bristol and the west, but policing apparently is being sent eastwards. Given the Government’s devolution agenda and the need for transparency and accountability in public services, that causes a real issue. There are rumours that the Government are changing course and trying to align boundaries. Is that the case—yes or no?

[Jo White]

As I am standing in for the Policing Minister, I cannot immediately answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member will get an answer as quickly as possible.

We are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures.

Public confidence in policing depends on communities knowing what they can expect from the local police service and on seeing those expectations met. That is why the Government are introducing local policing guarantees, which will provide greater transparency and accountability on the policing services that matter most to the public.

The Government have committed to setting clear expectations on the issues that matter most to the public, including a target for forces to attend 90% of the most serious incidents within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas, alongside measures to improve the speed with which 999 calls are answered. However, public confidence is about more than response times alone. It is also shaped by whether victims receive a good service and whether forces are effective at tackling crime.

HMICFRS’s recent “State of Policing” report urged forces to make urgent improvements in how they investigate crime and secure justice for victims. Forces must get the basics of investigation right. The Government are strengthening the way police performance is monitored and improved. Through the policing performance system, inspection findings are brought together with analysis against the police performance framework to provide a comprehensive picture. This enables earlier identification of concerns and targeted support in collaboration with the College of Policing, and intervention where required. A stronger focus on delivering better outcomes for victims and the public will play a key part in rebuilding and maintaining trust and confidence for victims of crime and communities.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand and respect that this is a devolved matter, but I asked a question on which I hope the Minister can give me the assurance that I seek. Northern Ireland is one part of the United Kingdom where terrorism is still active, although to a lesser extent. To police that correctly and effectively the PSNI needs resources. Will the Minister please have discussions with the relevant Minister to ensure that it has those resources? She has given an assurance on resources elsewhere in the United Kingdom; we in Northern Ireland need equal and effective resources, to ensure that the terrorism threat in Northern Ireland is dissipated and reduced.

[Jo White]

I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s request is passed to my colleague the Policing Minister when she returns.

All communities deserve to have trust and confidence in the police. That starts with ensuring that those who enter policing are vetted and assessed thoroughly and remain suitable to work in policing throughout their service. This year we delivered our manifesto commitment to introduce mandatory standards on vetting. As part of those standards, applicants who have a caution or conviction for relevant VAWG offences, including domestic abuse and sexual offences, are disqualified from entering policing. A presumption of withdrawal of vetting clearance applies for serving police officers in these circumstances.

The Home Office has provided HMICFRS with £100,000 for this financial year to expand the scope of its integrity inspections. These will now look at recruitment and selection processes alongside vetting in every force in England and Wales. We have also provided £425,000 to the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop an accredited regime on vetting. This will include the development of standardised training and stronger intervention in forces that are not complying with vetting standards.

The Home Office has to date provided approximately £3.5 million towards the NPCC’s continuous integrity screening programme. This is developing a system that will provide automated alerts from the police national database to forces in relation to anyone working in policing, enabling forces to take action earlier. Where police fall short of the standards expected of them, the public rightly expect that they will be held to account. The Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a crucial role in overseeing the police complaints system. It also investigates the most serious and sensitive matters, such as deaths and serious injuries and serious allegations of corruption involving the police. The Government announced plans to reform the governance of the IOPC to strengthen its accountability and resilience.

On 30 July the Home Secretary launched an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. It will be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens and Jason Beer KC, and will report in six months. It will establish whether the police accountability system is fit for purpose, whether it is transparent, and how we can minimise avoidable delays for victims, families and officers.

I agree that public confidence and trust in policing have been damaged by the social media clips referred to by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Trust cannot be built through slogans or by drawing policing into wider debates. It is rebuilt when people see officers on their streets, know that crimes will be investigated, receive a proper service when they need help and have confidence that the highest standards are upheld. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) that we as MPs have a responsibility to develop and give respect to the police officers in our communities, and to signal the way in which we should work with the police in order to build community strength and cohesiveness in the constituencies we represent.

Trust in the police matters because policing in the UK is fundamentally based on consent. When people trust the police, they are more willing to report crime, share information, act as witnesses, comply with the law and work with officers to solve local problems. We recognise that trust and confidence are stronger in some communities than in others, and that confidence has declined over time. That is why the Government are focused on practical action: restoring neighbourhood policing, increasing transparency about police performance, strengthening accountability, modernising police force structures and ensuring that forces have the support they need to tackle the crimes and antisocial behaviour that matter most to local people.

The reforms are about having the right policing in the right place, so that people feel safer, see police where they live and know they will get the help they need when they need it. The programme is needed to improve effectiveness and restore public trust, creating a stronger, more co-ordinated national approach to the capabilities that underpin policing. The public do not want a police service that is distracted from its core mission; they want a police service that prevents crime, protects communities and serves victims. That is exactly what our reforms are designed to deliver.

Let me turn to the matter of people knowing who their local police officer is. Neighbourhood policing is essential to restoring public confidence in the police. Officers who know their communities are better placed to understand local concerns, respond to issues that matter to residents and provide visible reassurance when needed. Every community deserves to have visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood police officers. Through the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are strengthening the connection between police and their communities by committing to delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament.

The Government recognise the profound and lasting impact that sexual violence can have on victims. We know that victims do not always receive the response or support they deserve, and that that has contributed to these crimes being under-reported. I am listening to the points raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). That is why we are committed to improving the police response to sexual violence to ensure that all victims are heard, taken seriously and treated with dignity.

To ensure consistency, we established the national centre for VAWG and public protection in April 2025. The centre provides co-ordinated national leadership in policing to tackle violence against women and girls. In addition, the centre is supporting all forces to implement the learnings of Operation Soteria, an academic-informed programme that has transformed the investigation of rape and sexual offences. As part of this, forces must maintain a commitment to continuous improvement—an acknowledgment that ongoing learning is essential to improving outcomes and experiences for victims. We want every force to have the right specialist capability to address sexual offences. That is why we have asked all forces in England and Wales to implement specialist rape and sexual offence teams by December 2027.

Hate crime is a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, which places clear legal duties on platforms to take proactive action against illegal hate content online. The Government also fund the national online hate crime hub, the national policing capability dedicated to online hate crime.

Let me say in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that police and justice are devolved to Northern Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s main budget is allocated by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low, and I welcome the Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers in line with the 2020 New Decade, New Approach agreement.

In closing, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe for securing the debate, and I thank everyone who has contributed. We have covered a lot of ground, and yet the nature of the topic means that inevitably, there is much more that could be said. I know that the Policing Minister will take great interest in the discussion that we have had today, not least because the question of how we drive up confidence in policing is one that concerns us all and has an impact on the lives of everyone across this country. As I have set out, the Government are taking action across multiple fronts, and we will continue working closely with the police to ensure that they have everything they need to maintain public trust and deliver for the communities that depend on them.

Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Barker. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 30 June, makes an important change to the alcohol licensing framework in England and Wales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises with a certificate to accept digital proof of age for the sale and supply of alcohol where that proof is provided through a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory DVS register, and where the relevant licensing conditions are met.

The measure offers those fortunate enough still to be asked for ID—whether they regard that as flattering or frustrating—an additional way to prove their age. Where a licensed premises or club premises with a certificate chooses to accept it, a person will be able to use properly verified digital proof of age, rather than relying on a passport, driving licence or other physical documents.

The mandatory licensing conditions currently require physical proof-of-age documents that bear a photograph, a date of birth and either a holographic mark or an ultraviolet feature. This remains a valid and important route for age verification. The draft order does not remove physical ID, does not require anyone to use digital proof of age and does not require a licensed premises or club premises to accept digital proof of age. It simply gives consumers and premises another option.

There are clear, practical benefits. Many people do not want to routinely carry valuable documents, such as a passport or driving licence, on a night out, or they might forget to bring them. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. There is also an important privacy and personal safety benefit: a driving licence may reveal a person’s full address when the only question that needs to be answered is whether they are old enough to obtain alcohol. Digital proof of age can confirm that threshold without unnecessary personal information being shared, which is particularly relevant for individuals who may feel uncomfortable disclosing their address in busy night-time settings.

The Government consulted on this issue between January and March 2024, and 72% of respondents supported the use of digital verification in the sale and supply of alcohol. The approach taken in the draft order reflects that support, while ensuring that providers meet Government-approved standards and that safeguards remain in place.

The Licensing Act 2003 is built around four licensing objectives, including the protection of children from harm. That objective remains central to this reform. Digital proof of age will be permitted only where it is provided by a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory register. This is not about simply showing a picture on a phone.

I also want to be clear about what the draft order does not do. It is not a national digital identity scheme. It does not create an identity card, make digital ID compulsory, give the Government visibility of alcohol purchases or permit the use of facial age-estimation technology for the sale and supply of alcohol. This is a targeted and proportionate reform that sits alongside wider work across Government on future age-assurance methods for other age-restricted products, while preserving physical ID, supporting licensed premises and club premises and giving consumers greater choice.

The current rules were drafted before secure digital verification was available. The draft order updates the framework to reflect modern consumer behaviour and technological change, while preserving the safeguards at the heart of the 2003 Act. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

I am grateful for both Members’ contributions.

This legislation supports the objectives of strengthening age-verification safeguards and preventing under-age alcohol sales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises to use secure digital methods to verify age, thereby giving consumers greater choice and reducing the need for people to carry and present important physical documents, or to disclose unnecessary personal information, unless they choose to do so.

It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. It is also important to note that not everyone holds a passport or driving licence. Digital proof of age can be created using a wider range of evidence while still meeting the required standards, which may make trusted proof of age accessible to a broader range of people.

The changes in the order are completely separate from the proposals for a national digital ID system, which are no longer being taken forward. Last year, the Government passed and commenced the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, establishing a legislative structure for the provision of trusted digital verification services and providing the statutory gateway for their use. Millions of people in Britain already use services that fall within that legal framework. The regulatory changes before us build on the existing regime.

The purpose of this legislation is to remove an existing legal barrier that prevents secure digital proof of age from being used when people purchase alcohol. Physical proof-of-age documents will continue to be accepted. The legislation will not make digital proof of age mandatory. The Government are taking an enabling approach; the legislation provides an additional option rather than replacing existing forms of proof of age. Retailers remain free to decide which age-verification methods they accept, and consumers remain free to use physical proof-of-age documents.

A digital PASS card could be used to buy alcohol if the amended mandatory licensing conditions—including that the digital proof of age based on information in the PASS card has been delivered by a certified and registered digital verification service provider—are met. The Government endorse all digital PASS cards to be used for age checks for the sale and supply of alcohol where the criteria set out in this legislation, and any relevant local licensing conditions, are met.

The legislation includes safeguards for digital proofs of age—including technological verification that the proof of age is genuine and confirmation that it relates to the person presenting it—that do not apply to physical documents. Digital proof of age cannot be accepted based on visual inspection alone. Digital proofs of age for alcohol purchases must be provided by digital verification services that have been certified against the UK digital verification services trust framework and appear on the gov.uk register of certified services. This ensures that the services can be trusted to prove correctly and securely that the person is 18, or over such older age as is set out in the age-verification policy.

I again thank the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Stratford-on-Avon for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and I hope my remarks have reassured Members that the Government have considered the issues carefully. This legislation will modernise the licensing regime, providing greater choice and convenience for consumers and support to businesses, while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect children and promote public safety. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Jo White Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

Changes to “Appendix Skilled Worker” to support victims of modem slavery

The sponsorship system is designed to ensure that overseas recruits have a genuine job to come to, that they will be paid appropriately, and that they can enjoy their employment rights. However, we have seen instances of skilled worker visa holders who entered the UK in good faith, complied with the terms of their visa and have experienced exploitation. This is simply unacceptable. Our crackdown on rogue employers continues and this includes taking action against sponsors who have exploited or enslaved their workers. To date, UK Visas and Immigration has revoked more than 7,500 sponsor licences, including 1,800 in the care sector alone. But we recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that victims are protected and supported by our immigration system, as set out in the immigration White Paper.

To ensure that victims of exploitation do not face further vulnerabilities, the changes we are making now allow victims who entered the UK legally and have been recognised as victims of modern slavery to undertake work in any occupation for the remaining duration of the visa validity. This incentivises victims to come forward early and guards against those who seek to weaponise the sponsorship system in order to exploit vulnerable workers.

Changes to facilitate the UK rejoining the Erasmus+ programme

UK standard visitor route

I am expanding the provisions of the visitor immigration route to facilitate new short-term activities under the Erasmus+ programme, which the UK agreed to rejoin as part of the UK-EU common understanding package at the UK-EU summit in May 2025.

I am introducing new changes to “Appendix V: Visitor” of the immigration rules to permit visitors under the Erasmus+ programme to study at UK state schools and academies. State-funded schools and academies will now be able to host Erasmus+ participants under short-term study placements for up to six months.

The changes to “Appendix V: Visitor” will also introduce new eligibility requirements and safeguards to ensure that Erasmus+ participants are legitimate and, where necessary, have permission from their parent or legal guardian and their home institution to undertake Erasmus+ activities in the UK.

Additionally, to facilitate new activities stemming from participation in the Erasmus+ programme, I am introducing new changes to “Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities”. All Visitors will now be able to partake in workshops, debates, and attend skills competitions.

A new section reserved for Erasmus+ activities will be introduced to “Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities”, which will allow participants to undertake courses and provide or receive training, and undertake traineeships—all at UK based organisations and academic institutions. Erasmus+ participants may also partake in coaching and training assignments at UK-based sports organisations through the standard visitor route.

Student route

To facilitate the wide array of activities being undertaken through the Erasmus+ programme, I will be introducing new changes to the UK’s student immigration route.

I will be implementing new amendments to “Appendix Student” to allow Erasmus+ participants to undertake study activities at RQF level 2 and above or SCQF level 5 and above for Scotland. The changes made to “Appendix Student” will also exempt courses through Erasmus+ from the requirement that a course must lead to an approved qualification.

Additional amendments to “Appendix Student” will be made so that, where an Erasmus+ course includes a work placement, the course does not need to lead to an approved qualification and, for below-degree courses, the confirmation of acceptance for studies does not need to be assigned by a student sponsor that is not a probationary sponsor.

The study conditions set out in “Appendix Student” and “Appendix Child Student” will be amended to permit Erasmus+ participants to study at a state-funded school or academy, where the institution holds a sponsor licence and sponsors the Erasmus+ student.

I will be making further changes to the student sponsor licence arrangements to allow state-funded schools and academies to hold sponsor licences to sponsor inbound Erasmus+ students.

Government authorised exchange visa scheme

I will be opening a new scheme on the GAE immigration route to facilitate eligible Erasmus+ programme placements. This will permit those entering the UK for the purposes of Erasmus+ to partake in a range of supernumerary work placements and internships as an Erasmus+ participant.

These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 3 September 2026. The changes will come into effect on 8 October 2026, 29 October 2026, 30 November 2026, and 9 December 2026, as detailed in the statement of changes.

[HCWS311]

Draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026

Jo White Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In keeping with wider efforts to improve the accessibility of public services, the draft regulations form part of the Government’s programme to modernise the registration of births, stillbirths and deaths in England and Wales. They support the move from paper registers to a fully electronic registration system, while preserving the integrity, reliability and legal certainty that have always been central to civil registration.

Before setting out the detail of the draft regulations, it may be helpful if I provide some historical context. Since 1837, the registration of a birth, stillbirth or death has involved an individual attending a register office and signing a paper register in ink. Although that process has served the public well, it reflects a system designed for a different era. As public services increasingly make use of secure digital technology, it is right that the registration system keeps pace, and the draft regulations will aid us in that endeavour. Instead of requiring a handwritten signature in a paper register, if a person complies with certain specified requirements at the time of registering a birth or death, they will be treated as having signed the register and, where relevant, in the presence of the registrar.

Removing the requirement to physically sign the register in the presence of the registrar will enable us to offer more flexible ways for the public to provide information for a registration, such as over the telephone or online using a portal on gov.uk, and they will be able to do so securely and at a time that suits the individual, without having to visit a register office. They will still have the choice to attend the register office in person to register an event.

It is important to emphasise that this is not about lowering standards or reducing safeguards; the core principles that underpin civil registration remain unchanged. Individuals will still be required to confirm the accuracy of the information they provide and formally declare that it is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Accountability therefore remains at the heart of the process.

The draft regulations also provide appropriate safeguards in relation to identity verification. Where identity assurance is required for the registration of a birth, individuals will be able to verify their identity through a recognised digital route such as One Login, or by providing documentary evidence to the registrar. The draft regulations set out the types of evidence that may be accepted, giving both registrars and the public clarity about the requirements. Importantly, the approach has been designed to be both secure and inclusive. Not everyone will wish to use digital services, and not everyone will possess the same forms of documentation. By providing more than one route for proving identity, the draft regulations ensure that people can continue to access registration services regardless of their circumstances.

The Committee will understandably want reassurance about security, and I can assure Members that the move to electronic registration is supported by robust cyber-security measures, developed in line with guidance from the National Cyber Security Centre and broader Cabinet Office security standards. In addition, the identity verification arrangements are aligned with the Government Digital Service’s “Good Practice Guide 45”, ensuring that checks are both proportionate and effective.

The benefits of these changes are significant. An electronic registration system will reduce reliance on paper processes, improve the efficiency and resilience of registration services and provide a stronger platform for future improvements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

In relation to stillborns, the new process will mean that people can telephone or record the death digitally. That means that they can do it in the privacy of their own homes. They will not have to confront the difficulties that are present with going in to register a stillbirth, where there is the fear of seeing people presenting the joyous side of the birth of a new baby. It gives them privacy and comfort, as well as the security that their lives can begin to start again once they have gone through that process.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Jo White Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here.

It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals.

The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse.

Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires.

To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa.

The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally.

Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20.

On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal.

Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling.

Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK.

In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law.

We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the Home Secretary has seen the number of people in the Chamber, and will be bringing her remarks to a conclusion shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I will be blunt: my constituents have lost faith in the asylum system. Under the previous Government, they watched borders slide out of control, criminal gangs profit and taxpayers face ever-rising costs while hotel use spiralled. Fairness collapsed and public trust collapsed with it. This Bill is how we earn that trust back.

First, we need control at the border. A fair system needs a firm line. We must stop the boats, target the smugglers and strengthen the checks so we know who is coming, how and why.

Secondly, we need swift decisions and final outcomes. Endless delays destroy confidence. Claims must be processed quickly. Appeals must be heard promptly by independent adjudicators, with decisions enforced. If someone qualifies, they receive protection without unnecessary delay; if they do not, departure should follow swiftly.

Thirdly, fairness means contribution. Those granted protection should work, rebuild their lives, contribute to our society, and help to offset the costs associated with processing their claims. Responsibility must sit alongside rights, and contribution alongside compassion.

Fourthly, protection must remain justified. Refugee status should be reviewed through a clear and streamlined process. If danger remains, protection continues. If circumstances change significantly, the system should respond accordingly. That is how we keep asylum credible.

Fifthly, we need honesty about costs and communities. Hotels are a symptom of a system under strain. By reducing backlogs and speeding up decisions, we can lower costs and ensure that outcomes are delivered. If protected, people move into work; if not, they are removed. Every pound saved can be redirected towards border security and genuine protection.

Sixthly, we need safe and legal routes. If we want people to choose safe routes, these routes must be real, reliable and fast. Clear criteria, rapid processing, UNHCR referrals and community sponsorship can provide a genuine alternative to dangerous crossings. The legal route must always be the better route. That is how the economic model of the people smugglers can be broken.

Those constituents who have lost faith are right to want to control the borders and to want faster decisions, lower costs and rules that are enforced. We need control of the border, compassion where it counts, and contribution and consequences in equal measure. We cannot undo yesterday’s failures, but we can build a system that is fair and credible. That is why I support the Bill.

High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Jo White Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing the debate. The Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is currently investigating organised crime on our high streets—that is welcome.

Across Worksop, Retford and Harworth, there has been a surge in vape shops, barber shops and mini-marts. They are clustered close together and often have barely any customers. Local people are asking a very simple question: how do such businesses survive?

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I certainly hear the same thing in Mansfield. Residents raise concerns with me when they see businesses that seem to operate without customers but somehow remain open and trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that, where there is evidence of that type of activity, the public are right to expect rapid enforcement of the law?

[Jo White]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I strongly believe that such businesses are money-laundering fronts. There needs to be close police scrutiny of them, and greater partnership with other authorities to monitor those shops and shut them down as quickly as possible.

Local traders and residents are rightly concerned. Earlier this year, I decided to take a closer look. I held a local inquiry, alongside Julie Leigh, the leader of Bassetlaw district council; Sally Gillborn, the chief executive of our business improvement district; and Michael Bullen, a local businessman. They deal with this issue day in, day out. The message that we received was clear: the system is not working. Planning rules are too weak, licensing is underpowered and enforcement is stretched.

We set out some practical recommendations. First, the Government must give councils real control over their high streets. At the moment, the clustering of such shops just happens and local communities are left to deal with the consequences. Secondly, we need proper regulation of vape and tobacco retailers—a licensing scheme is long overdue. Thirdly, we cannot ignore the harder question. Where we see cash-heavy businesses with little visible trade, it is right to ask whether they have links to wider criminal activity. Such links must be properly investigated, and enforcement needs backing. Licensing fees have not kept pace with other developments, trading standards officers are under pressure and the relevant data is not being used as it should be.

This is not just about Whitehall; it is also about what happens locally. We need visible neighbourhood policing back in our town centres, with named officers, a consistent presence and real relationships with businesses. The Nottinghamshire police and crime commissioner listened to my call for a police station in Worksop, and I welcome the announcement that it will be opening shortly, but we need simple ways to report concerns, and confidence that those concerns will be acted on. We need co-ordination; at the moment, too much intelligence is siloed. At its heart, this is about fairness—fairness for the businesses doing the right thing—and confidence for the public that their high street is safe and properly regulated. What we are seeing is not tolerated or isolated; it is serious, and we need action right now.

Police Reform White Paper

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his service, as well as that of other hon. Members who have served in our police service. I reassure him that, as will be clear when I introduce legislation later in the year, the plan for regional forces will include an absolute focus on local police areas. Local policing for local communities will be tailored to many of the needs that he has pointed out, but at a regional level we will have the necessary economies of scale and the capacity to deal with specialist investigations, while ensuring that the quality of those investigations does not depend on which part of the country they happen to be in. When the detail is out, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to support the proposals, given that they will focus carefully on local policing areas specifically in order to deal with some of the issues he has raised.

The exact number of regional forces and the geography that they will span will be a matter for the reviewer—I hope to announce who that will be very soon—with a view to reporting in the summer so that we can crack on with rolling out these reforms.

I have been delighted and a little surprised by the sheer number of policing leaders who have come out in support of these proposals, including those who represent organisations that will see change as a result of the reforms. The sheer range of people who have supported the White Paper shows that these reforms are the right ones for policing in our country.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I very much welcome these proposals. The NCA is hugely under-resourced, and bringing these elements together will hopefully give it the funding required to do its job properly. The amount of duplication of effort that occurs and the lack of information sharing result in huge inefficiencies. It is struggling with the pace of change in technology, especially because of end-to-end encryption, and it is struggling to hire and retain staff with the technical skills that it requires—people who have those skills are eagerly snapped up by the private sector. It does not have the funding to make the technical investment needed to keep up with the pace of change.

As a result of the structure and separated command and control of the regional organised crime units, the NCA and the Met, they make decisions and prioritise independently and without deconfliction, in the procurement of tools and data, for example. That means that the same technologies can be acquired multiple times to benefit only a single area. Does the Secretary of State agree that this White Paper will tackle those challenges head-on?

West Midlands Police

Jo White Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking action across a range of different Departments—Education, Health and the Home Office—to drive out antisemitism in every way it presents itself. I am particularly cognisant of the impact on our institutions and of how the democratic underpinning of our society can be overcome, frustrated and thwarted by antisemites undermining the very basis on which we run our country. I assure him that every effort is being made.

As someone who has suffered racism and discrimination because of my faith and race background, I think I can speak for most ethnic minority people on the view that we generally take on these matters, which is that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. There has to be solidarity across our country and for every one of our communities. It is the collective whole that makes this country great.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have been following this matter closely. Last autumn, safety advisory groups from Birmingham and Leicester banned or scaled down Diwali events. Does the Home Secretary agree that councillors should be removed from SAGs, and that there should be greater transparency to ensure that there is no reliance on confirmation bias, which is, in my view, intertwined with the risk of predetermination that local authorities have a duty prevent when carrying out judicial duties?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Home Affairs Committee for their work on this and other matters. There are question marks over the way in which safety advisory groups function. As she remarks, there have been other incidents in which people have asked questions about how controversial decisions came to be made. That is why I asked Sir Andy to look more broadly at the functioning of safety advisory groups and to come to a view on their make-up, the transparency required of them, and the process by which they should make decisions. It is a little early to make determinations about whether any politician should be represented on those groups. If the system works well, local politicians can bring a local perspective with knowledge that only they have, but if that turns into an improper attempt to force their own political agenda, it cannot be tolerated. I hope that when Sir Andy publishes his findings, we will be able to return to where policy or legislative change is needed.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I will certainly look back at and read that report, which I very much welcome. It relates to some of the wider questions about nationally significant events and how SAGs operate. I am sorry that there has not been a response to the Committee; I encourage everybody to respond as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady is right to raise wider questions about how SAGs operate; we need to get to the heart of that.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

This quagmire needs much greater scrutiny, and to be brought out into the disinfectant of daylight. Let me repeat the question: why have no safety advisory group minutes been produced? How many times did the SAG meet on this issue? Will the Minister ask whether there was a UEFA representative at the safety advisory group meeting, and what their advice was?

[Sarah Jones]

I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question. As we mentioned at the Select Committee, how many times the safety advisory group was meeting was slightly unclear to us at the Home Office, because our relationship with the safety advisory group is through the UK football organisation. We were receiving information in a slightly ad hoc way, according to when we asked for that information, and that is one of the things we need to look at. Of course, I am very happy, as my hon. Friend is, to go back and ask questions about who was there.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Jo White Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

Absolutely. I think that the concept of a retrospective introduction of criteria is what is really concerning residents, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will have been listening to the point that my hon. and learned Friend just made.

With months to go until many BNO families hit the five-year mark, the possibility of a sudden shift has understandably caused anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, if the Government are to impose a financial test, could this be an assessed contribution at household level rather than for each person in isolation? Secondly, will the Government consider introducing transitional arrangements so that anyone already on a pathway to ILR is not subject to new conditions retrospectively? Thirdly, will the Government consider exempting the BNO route from the changes altogether, having openly acknowledged this group’s historic attachment to the United Kingdom? Fourthly, if these new rules are needed, will the Government look into common-sense exemptions for pensioners, children, disabled people and others whose earning and linguistic potential is likely to remain low?

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. A very large number of people wish to take part in the debate, and I will try to get everybody in, but if there continue to be interventions, some people will not get in. I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can shortly bring his remarks to a close so that I can get everybody in. Thank you.

[Jo White]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

All right, we will have one more intervention.

[Jo White]

Thank you, Sir Edward; I will be very quick. I received yesterday a petition from 500 people, so I feel obliged to contribute. Many Hongkongers relocated here, trusting the UK Government’s promise. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) agree that altering the rules after relocation contradicts the spirit in which and the legal ethics under which the route was established?

[James Naish]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend and I worked together at Bassetlaw district council and welcomed a lot of Hongkongers into our community, so I thank her for her support today.

I will now turn much more briefly to Ukrainian humanitarian visa routes. It is 11 years since the beginning of Russia’s illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine, and three years since Russia began its full-scale invasion. Since then, over 200,000 displaced Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under Ukrainian visa schemes. However, there remains no pathway to permanent settlement for Ukrainians in the UK, and time spent under these schemes does not count towards the UK’s 10-year route to ILR. A very recent survey of 3,000 Ukrainians by the University of Birmingham demonstrated that this uncertainty is having a deep, emotional and practical toll on that important group.

Like many hon. Members here, I am proud that my constituents continue to support the Ukrainian war effort. In my recent survey, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine. I know that many of my constituents would like that support to be reflected in our approach to Ukrainians living in the UK, too. I therefore hope that the Home Office will fully explore how it can enhance the existing Ukrainian visa schemes to provide a route to ILR for Ukrainians deeply embedded in the UK. After all, some Ukrainian children have now spent far more time in the UK school system than the Ukrainian one, and more time speaking English with their friends than Ukrainian. Both Ukrainian adults and children have built vital support networks that they will require as their country is slowly rebuilt, and they should not be forgotten.

I am proud of the BNO and Ukrainian communities in my constituency. In Rushcliffe, Hongkongers and Ukrainians are working in our NHS and care homes, starting businesses, volunteering in community groups and enriching our cultural life. The UK is better off because they chose to come here. I believe that this House recognises their contribution, and I am confident that colleagues will continue to work together to advocate for them. We must ensure that the small print genuinely reflects the spirit of welcome and protection expressed by Ministers, rather than inadvertently undermining it. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.