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

  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.

• 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.