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.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I think not, but there we are. He is my constituency neighbour in Croydon, so best wishes to him always.

The 2 October was the point at which the Home Office asked officials in the United Kingdom football policing unit for the update, and we were told that a range of different options were being considered. That is certainly true, and I will not shy away from that. It is now important we ensure that where there are lessons to be learned, we learn them.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

At high-risk football matches, including several local derbies, away fans have been given tickets only once they are on the coaches. Those buses have been taken in by a police escort, removing any fan clashes. Does the Minister agree that questions should be asked about why that tried and tested method was not used?

[Sarah Jones]

The SAG looked at lots of considerations in terms of what the options were. Should it have been a closed match, for example, with no fans? That sometimes happens. Should the match not have gone ahead at all? As my hon. Friend says, should it have been a match with a limited number of tickets? Many options were being weighed up, but a SAG will not just look at the policing advice when it makes its recommendation; it will also look at other factors. That is why we want to get to the heart of how the SAG process is working, what kinds of decisions are being made and how it operates.

I should also tell the House that although there was concern that there would be problems at the match itself, with significant protest and different groups coming to the match, those concerns were not realised, which was a good thing. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point.

Asylum Policy

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights?

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Jo White Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear: we need action right across the board, from strengthening prevention—working in partnership with countries like Iraq—right through to law enforcement and increased action on the criminal gangs. We are taking action on border security itself, with action along the French coast and in the channel in French waters, and strengthening the returns arrangements. We are also taking action here in the UK, whether on illegal working or on reforms to the asylum system. We need to be clear that there must be strong standards on issues of criminality: anybody who comes to the UK through whatever route needs to abide by our laws, and that must be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have put in place new measures to strengthen the criminality checks in the asylum system and to have much stronger action as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will support that legislation rather than voting against it.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is willing to do what it takes to stop the small boats. The French claim that the ability to work illegally in the UK is what motivates those who are willing to take the dangerous journey across the channel. Does the Home Secretary agree, and will she outline the actions she is taking to crack down on illegal working and destroy those incentives?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It has been way too easy to work illegally in this country for far too long. That is why, since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids by 50%, increased arrests for illegal working by 50%, and increased the penalties for employers that exploit illegal migration, which undercuts responsible and respectable businesses, by a third. However, we have to go further. We know in particular that illegal migration is being exploited in the gig economy, where there are not proper checks in place. We will therefore bring in new legislation to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy, alongside a surge of immigration enforcement activity and biometric checks that will enable us to use fingerprints to check who people are on the spot. We must have stronger enforcement and stronger rules in place. It is a real shame that the Opposition parties—the Conservatives and Reform—voted against those illegal working rules.