Jonathan Hinder MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Public Confidence in the Police · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for public confidence in the police. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by noting that the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), cannot be with us today because she is attending the funeral of PC Matthew Blades, who so tragically died in Cleveland in the collision that we are all sadly familiar with. I pay tribute to the two officers who died in the line of duty, to all the Cleveland officers who continue to serve in spite of what has happened, and to the whole community who have rallied round both families and the officers they now, more than ever, appreciate and want to show that appreciation. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for attending the debate in the Policing Minister’s place.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Public Confidence in the Police · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The police funding formula is long overdue for reform, and that incident can accelerate our move towards that. Middlesbrough is a high-crime area and a very deprived area, and that needs to be reflected in the formula. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to push forward reform there and across the country. I secured this debate on public confidence in the police because, over the last decade and a half, public confidence in the police has been heading in the wrong direction. Whether we look at crime surveys, victim satisfaction surveys or polling trackers from companies such as YouGov, the trend has been downward, which is worrying. If a significant proportion of the public were no longer to see the police as legitimate, we would be headed down a very dark path. I do not want to spend my whole speech lamenting the then governing Conservative party’s handling of policing—cutting 20,000 officers and then hurriedly returning officer numbers to the same level when they realised what a serious error they had made; constantly shifting their stance on stop and search, tightening and then loosening it; the full circle performed on police recruitment routes; and so on—but the recent history is critical to understanding the position that policing finds itself in today. I know what a disastrous impact it had on neighbourhood policing because I was there, serving as a police constable, sergeant and inspector during those years. Just at the time that policing was being—let us say—deprioritised by the Government, policing demand changed significantly. High-harm offences committed behind closed doors, as opposed to in the street, were reported in much higher numbers, thanks to changing societal attitudes, improved police culture and high-profile historical cases increasing awareness. Domestic abuse reports to the police doubled in 10 years, reports of sexual offences rocketed, and child abuse became much more commonly reported. It is good that people now feel able to report those offences and that the police are taking them seriously, but it was a perfect storm. Just at the time when policing was losing not just thousands of officers but thousands of experienced officers, a huge wave of high-harm demand emerged while policing was—and in some cases still is—equipped with data systems from the 1970s. It is absolutely right that investigating high-harm offences is now core policing business, but we must acknowledge that the huge change to policing demand has reduced police visibility on the streets, which is a key determinant of public confidence.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Public Confidence in the Police · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member, and it is something I impress on my local officers. There is nothing more annoying as an MP, but also as a resident, to find that our local inspector or borough commander has changed for the third time in a year. It is so frustrating, and that is something that policing can control, so I wholeheartedly agree with that. Police funding is not my focus today, but I will leave colleagues with one thought about it. Given that the police are now receiving so many reports of high-harm crime, which is complex and time-consuming to investigate compared with what they did 20 years ago, how could they possibly still be as visible in communities as they used to be, and as focused on street crime, without a significant increase in funding? What else can the Government do to improve the public’s confidence in policing? Put simply, they can provide political leadership which sets very clear priorities that match those of the public and give our officers the backing they need to deliver on them. Policing is not just about crime, and it never has been, no matter what some people might tell us about a so-called golden age in the past. It is about policing protests, finding missing people, intervening to stop mentally ill people harming themselves. There always needs to be clear prioritisation from the Government and police leaders. If everything is a priority, nothing is. But it is true that the policing mission has become increasingly blurred, and we have seen the police repeatedly overstep into cases where they should not be. When the public view those cases alongside a lack of police visibility in their area, or instances where basic investigations are not done for offences like theft, they lose confidence that policing has its priorities right. It is right that the Government have scrapped non-crime hate incidents; now we need a new Public Order Act. This legislation, which underpins free speech and its limits in this country, is 40 years old this year. It is not fit for this online, more polarised era. While I do not absolve police leaders of their responsibilities to apply the law sensibly, politicians should be providing clear direction. We need to clarify what is legitimate debate and what is simply someone being unpleasant. What is actual crime that we want the police to intervene in? The Government commissioned a review of public order legislation, which I understand was submitted to the Home Office in May this year, but it has not been published, as far as I am aware. I would be grateful if the Government, either today or shortly afterwards, could update Members on when we should expect that, as a new settlement on the issue is badly needed. A series of high-profile, horrific misconduct scandals in recent years have shaken public confidence, not least because they could have been stopped much earlier. The existing misconduct system is too slow to weed out those who should not be police officers or, indeed, never should have been, yet the system is often over-zealous when it comes to much lower-level allegations of misconduct, ruining the lives of officers who in many cases are fundamentally good and have sought to do the right thing. That is a terrible combination, so I was pleased that over the summer the Government announced an end-to-end review of police misconduct processes. Again, that is much needed, and I sincerely hope the review reports quickly, so that tangible improvements can be made quickly on the back of it to strike a much better balance. The system should prioritise getting the really bad officers out without delay, support officers who have made honest mistakes, and not incentivise a grievance culture that makes officers feel like they are treading on eggshells whenever they open their mouths. If we get this right, we can kick out those officers who are not fit to wear the uniform. Meanwhile, we will have fewer brilliant officers making the active choice to leave because they do not feel supported to do what is an extraordinary job. This is critical to improving the culture and performance of police forces, and therefore to improving public confidence. To sum up, the Government must provide strong political leadership if we want to rebuild public confidence in policing, and that means policing being relentlessly focused on doing the basics well. Do not look for a silver bullet to improve public confidence, because there isn’t one. An extra engagement team, more attendance at community events, a new force slogan on the side of the patrol cars focusing on recruits’ identity more than on their policing ability—these activities at the margins will not improve public confidence, no matter how well meaning. Let us be clear about what is a priority and what is not, and then back our officers to do the basics well, day in, day out. That is how we can improve public confidence in policing.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Public Confidence in the Police · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have spoken and intervened during the debate. So many important points have been made, and I think we have found quite a lot of agreement. I hope that we can push forward together, across the parties, because policing and crime is such an important issue for all our constituents across the country, yet it often receives far less attention in Parliament than many other issues. I am pleased to be able to make my small contribution to putting that right and am grateful to Members for joining me in that effort. I thank them all for attending. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for public confidence in the police.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  This decision, to put it mildly, is frustrating for everyone in Lancashire who has been involved in the process, and I feel for councillors, council workers and all the service users for having to deal with that frustration. What are the legal reasons, so I can go back to my constituents and explain them? Having listened to this statement, I have nothing I can take back to constituents to explain why this happened, when the next step will be, or whether the boundaries that were just announced in July are going to change. Give us something to go back to people with, please.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot answer that specific question, but I will reference a case later on, and I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament. Pregnant women are not factories, and babies are not goods to be ordered. I believe this is crossing an ethical line, where human life is treated as a business transaction. The child must have the right to know where it has come from and how it came to be in this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived, that child has become a commodity, which it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers, and it is simply wrong to treat children in this way. Implementing the demands of the petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy, and we need only look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads: wealthy couples exploiting desperate women; international human trafficking rings; and exportation and erasure. That is the end destination when we start from the principles implied in the petition. Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marie Anne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. Recalling the chilling moment after she gave birth, she said: “They had the baby. They were happy. They didn’t need me anymore so they told me to go home.” She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park. She also describes the impact on her life, saying: “I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD…I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies…The damage done to me will never be repaired.” France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all banned surrogacy outright. As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is “not compatible with the dignity of women”. I therefore conclude by urging colleagues to reject both the commodification of babies and mothers implied by the petition and the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. However good the intentions of those bringing forward this petition for affected parents are, and I do not question them, any loosening of the surrogacy laws would be a serious mistake. The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother “even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.” Just think about how cold and clinical those words are: “no biological connection”, when that woman carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. That is the commodification of women’s bodies. To carry a child for nine months, share your body, feel new life kicking inside you and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth—those are experiences that create a profound, undeniable biological connection. What of intention? The principle behind the petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond, and indeed a physical one, grows as the pregnancy develops. New mothers say that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before. They often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born. The petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who are no longer in the Chamber, on Andrew Harper. What kind of message would it have sent to our 140,000 police officers if those killers had been released? It is important that those officers know that this House has their back, whether they are opening their locker at 6 am for the early shift or at 10 pm for the night shift, but I am afraid to say that due to Governments of all different stripes over a long period, police officers have not felt that. They are all used to politicians saying that they support the police and so forth, and we are grateful for that, but what police officers really need is for that support to be borne out in decision making and actions. I beg the Justice Secretary to bear that in mind in all the decisions he takes in what will, I hope, be a very successful tenure.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Mental Health Support for Police Officers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer to my written question confirming that the Home Office does not collect data on post-traumatic stress disorder in police officers. Does she agree that either the Home Office or police forces need to have that data, so that we can understand the scale of the problem and support our officers accordingly?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The Police Federation is the only staff association that police officers can join to represent them, and yet the chief executive has paid himself £1.4 million over two years from members’ subscriptions. Does the Minister agree that frontline police officers have lost confidence in the national leadership of the Police Federation and should be allowed to set up an alternative?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Police Leadership Commission Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the focus on police leadership, and look forward to reading the report in detail. I thank her for acknowledging that this Government are not the first to grapple with this issue. Those of us who have been around policing for a little while have seen lots of changes, whether police and crime commissioners, independent misconduct chairs, or the different entry routes that the Conservatives brought in and then went back on, and there is a real weariness about changes to these processes. Frontline officers want to know whether it will get easier to deliver on the priorities that they know the public have but that they do not really feel backed to deliver. Can she reassure the House that that will be at the centre—no matter what changes, well-intentioned though they might be, are made on the back of this report?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  There is huge opposition to this among people who vote Labour, including many of my constituents, so I implore—

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has repeatedly told us that he feels uncomfortable and uneasy. If I am totally honest, I do not think that he believes that this is right at all. I think that in his heart, he knows that this is wrong. Of course it is wrong: stopping an 11-year-old—a primary school child—from going through the natural process that we must all go through to become adults by injecting them with drugs is wrong. We must think about the title of the statement: puberty suppression. People do not need a medical or a science degree to know that the suppression of puberty is wrong. This is a moral question and I am afraid that as it stands the Secretary of State is on the wrong side of it. He says “let them be”—if only they had let Keira Bell be. When she had the treatment, Keira Bell was much older than these children will be when they are given it. She regrets it all and now campaigns to stop this. There is huge public opposition to this—

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  I am so pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that, as I briefly did earlier, because I do not mean to diminish the work of many federation representatives. There are many brilliant federation representatives and leaders in some parts of the country. This debate is very much about the national organisation and whether it can reform itself. The federation says that officers having choice of representation “would weaken, not strengthen, the voices of police officers” but it is hard to believe that it could be weaker than it has been in recent years. To reiterate, this would not require Government funds. It is not about striking or unionisation. The federation can remain a staff association for police officers to join if they so wish, but allowing officers to choose a staff association that truly represents their interests would send a powerful message to our police officers that their interests and voices matter. I will finish with something mildly amusing. The Police Federation has been running a campaign called “Copped Enough: What the Police Take Home is Criminal”, which is about how police officer’s wages since 2010 have seen cuts in real terms. That is a worthy cause. Would anyone do the things I described at the start of my speech for a starting salary of £30,000? During the time of running that campaign, however, the federation has been led by someone paying themselves £700,000 a year from police officers’ subscriptions, and he was recently arrested on suspicion of corruption. To remind Members, the campaign that his organisation has been running is called “What the Police Take Home is Criminal”. It is hard not to laugh, but in truth, it is a massive slap in the face for the police officers effectively paying those ridiculous wages, whose interests the federation should be serving. I am grateful for the Government’s engagement with the issue so far, and the Minister’s response to my letter, which was signed by colleagues across parties three weeks ago. I note that her response states that “the Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.” I hope that, having heard the case set out today, the Government will seriously consider simply giving police officers the freedom to form and join an alternative body, so that their interests are effectively represented.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation. I am pleased to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will start by briefly sharing some of my experiences as a police officer, so brace yourselves because some of it is not very nice. In my time in policing, I was the first to arrive at a triple homicide scene. It was a mother who had killed her own three children. I saw people take their last breaths on Earth at road accidents; I pulled a suicidal man down from a road bridge; I knocked on people’s doors to tell them that their loved ones had passed away; and I was called to mentally ill people self-harming down to the bone with a razor. I was spat at by the people I was arresting and, of course, subject to the most disgusting verbal abuse from the people I was looking after in custody inside the police station. That is the reality of policing. If only it were just about catching criminals, but it never has been and it never will be. I mention those incidents not because my experience was particularly notable; it was precisely the opposite. That is the reality of being a frontline police officer. They see all of that; in one minute they have to be physically tough in the face of aggression, and in the next they have to be emotionally sensitive with a victim of serious crime. That is what our police officers do day in, day out, working earlies, lates and nights on the public’s behalf. We owe them so much for doing the essential work that most people would not have the guts to even consider. Being a police officer is mostly a thankless job. They get to the end of a long shift doing their bit for society and they feel that the politicians, the media and the courts do not back them up. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but in the meantime, we have to ask who is looking out for the interests of our police officers. That brings me to the Police Federation. The Police Act 1919 stated that, given their unique role in society, police officers could not join an ordinary trade union or take strike action. To be clear, I am not seeking to question that today. However, in recognising the need for representation, that legislation established one staff association to represent police officers: the Police Federation. That was reaffirmed in the Police Act 1996. I want to pay tribute to the many hard-working federation representatives over the decades, including those serving in forces across the country today, for the work they have done representing their local members. I do not diminish their work in supporting individual police officers in their time of need, but I am afraid that the national leadership of the Police Federation is rotten. It is not right that 140,000 frontline officers have to pay their subscriptions and put up with that because it is the only staff association that they are legally allowed to join. Over the last two years, the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation has paid himself £1.4 million in salary and bonuses. That is paid through the monthly subscriptions from police officers’ wages. That fact alone is shocking, but it is the culmination of years of failure. Most recently, senior members of the federation who asked questions about its governance were purged from the organisation. Elected representatives who reflected the legitimate concerns of frontline police officers on policing issues were also purged. How can there ever be reform if those who ask questions and could have helped build a better federation are seen as the problem? This issue goes back even further. There was the disastrous handling of the changes to police pensions, where it was found that the federation misled its own members, failed to communicate with them, and victimised officers who were forced to take action on their own. Cultural change was promised after the scathing Normington review of 2014, but a decade later things were still so bad that another report, the Bousted review, which was completed just last year, described “an arrogant and inward-looking culture born of a centralist mindset and”— crucially— “a feeling that the interests and views of rank-and-file members do not matter.” If so, what is the federation really for?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  I am not discussing that today, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Having diversity of options for officers could be useful in instances such as that. I thank the National Police Association, formed of former federation reps and staff, for campaigning on this issue before me, in their own time. I thank the Metropolitan police’s network of women for sharing their concerns. The network’s leadership told me: “Officers are effectively being asked to fund campaigns that they fundamentally do not support, without transparency, consultation or accountability.”

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for their support for police officers. I know that the effectiveness of the Police Federation is not necessarily a debate that most MPs are engaged with, so I really appreciate their coming here today and advocating on behalf of police officers in their patches. I also thank other colleagues for sharing the experiences of police officers, and for talking about Northern Ireland. The debate is not really focused on Northern Ireland—it is about the Police Federation of England and Wales—but it was interesting to hear about the situation there. I thank everyone for the collegiate nature of the whole debate, which was evident from all sides. I really appreciate people attending and paying attention to the issues, and I hope that we can continue to work on a cross-party basis to reach a much better state of police representation in the very near future. Finally, and most importantly of all, I thank all the police officers across the whole United Kingdom for what they do for us. I am proud to have been one of them and I am honoured to have a small role to play now in speaking up for them as an MP. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  I would not dispute that one jot. The present national leadership say that “a transformed Federation is the best way to deliver effective representation” but I am afraid that officers have heard it all before. I dare say they will hear it again unless radical action is taken. It is because of this repeated systemic and cultural failure that I have come to the conclusion that only if police officers are given the freedom to establish and join an alternative will they get the representation they need and deserve. The Police Federation has very few advocates within policing. I thank the many officers who have contacted me to say how pleased they are to see this campaign getting attention, with many confirming that only the monopoly and fear of being without representation when they really need it keeps them subscribing.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is outlining cases where the application of that guidance might be difficult. Does she think that it would be difficult for someone to determine whether I, given the way I look, should be in a women’s single-sex space?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member accept that, as she says, men are generally the ones who attack women and that, if we do not have single-sex spaces, predatory men will use circumstances that are to their benefit to attack women? That is exactly why we need single-sex spaces.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to put on the record how welcome it is to see the comments of the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. It is fair to say that Scottish Labour has been on a bit of a journey on this issue, but he has got to the right place, and I welcome that. I join the hon. Lady in stating that the Supreme Court judgment clarifies existing law. It did not change the law. It is about enforcing the existing law. Women have had their lives ruined by this issue over many years, and they are still having their lives ruined by it, as we see in the Sex Matters “One year later” report. Is the hon. Lady as baffled as I am that we still seem to have violent men—murderers, no less—in women’s prisons?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I commend Northumbria police for overseeing a huge and safe policing operation at the Newcastle-Sunderland match over the weekend, one of the many matches successfully policed every season. However, given that those officers are taken from normal day jobs in response teams, neighbourhood policing and so forth, does the Minister agree that it is time to think about the Premier League contributing more than the 20% it currently contributes to those costs, so that we can put that money back into policing?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?