Public Confidence in the Police

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for paying tribute to our incredibly brave police officers in Cleveland, who have had an extraordinarily difficult couple of weeks but have dealt with the situation with extreme professionalism. One of their challenges is that since 2010 Cleveland has 220 fewer officers—it is at the bottom of the table for police cuts—so it is extraordinary how the force has approached the situation with such professionalism, bravery and courage despite that situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula needs to be urgently reviewed so that we are not penalising areas of high deprivation?

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I recognise the hon. Member’s police service; I myself served for 12 years in Lothian and Borders police. One of the challenges we now have is that there is a continual churn in police roles, which means that communities do not know their police officers and their police officers do not know them. Does the hon. Member agree that, culturally, that is something the police service needs to tackle?

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am sorry to hear about the situation of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and I would be happy to talk to him about the case in more detail so that we can learn the lessons. We are looking at what happens during misconduct cases, and at the support that is given to officers. There is also a particular issue around the domestic abuse that is suffered by police officers, and we are trying to ensure, by working with women’s organisations and others, that we get our response right.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree that we need to be doing all that we can to record data. We are looking at data on suicide, for instance, as my hon. Friend knows, and ensuring that we have the right information there. We are expanding our psychological risk assessments from 50,000 to 150,000, which will hopefully also give us more information that we can use. I stand with my hon. Friend in wanting to support our officers in any way we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will know that 70,000 people have been removed by this Government—41% up on the figure under our predecessors. He makes a good point about data, which has been the subject of our response to a recent report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. We are looking at the issue closely because we want colleagues in this House and the public at large to have the best possible data to work from, so that we can have the most informed conversation possible.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, the chief executive is no longer in post. We are clear that the pace of change is not fast enough. We have made it clear in the police reform White Paper that we will bring forward any reforms necessary to ensure that the interests of rank and file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented. It is important to say that there are good members of the Police Federation who are working across the country and doing brilliant work, including those who I met in Newcastle. We need to tread carefully, but he is right to raise this issue.

Police Leadership Commission Report

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the report. I agree with some of what he said. He is right that it is not the work of critics looking in from the outside. The evidence base was developed through nine months of forensic work, talking to police across all levels within the force, meaning that this is a very honest assessment of the realities in which we find ourselves.

As I said in my statement, police leadership has been a problem for some time. Inspections of police forces by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services from 2023 to 2025 showed that not a single force had outstanding leadership. There are different leadership challenges across all our forces. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the public need to believe in the police and be confident in policing. The statistics on public confidence in policing have been worrying for some years now, and we must all look at them.

The hon. Gentleman made the usual point about officer numbers, and I will make the usual point back: as he knows, the Conservative party cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but then put 12,000 of them behind desks. We are taking them away from desks and putting them on the frontline. We are also investing in technology. For example, the £75 million that I put into PoliceAI will transform the bureaucracy on which our police officers have to spend lots of their time, so that they can focus on the frontline.

Overall, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s nice comments on the leadership review. The review has been incredibly important, and it is important that we have cross-party agreement about the need to improve leadership in policing.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to be laser-focused on what will improve outcomes for the public and what will enable the police to do the job that we ask them to do. I do recommend that he reads the report—it is a very good read. At its heart, it says that we want our police to have sound judgment and common sense in their policing. We want them to be freed up to make the decisions that are commonsensical and the right thing to do. To do that, we have not only to strip away the bureaucracy and all the forms they have to fill in, but to ensure that they are trained to be the police officers we want them to be. How do we match that training with freeing up our police to get on and do the job that we all ask them to do in the first place?

Murder of Henry Nowak

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.

The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.

Police Federation

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very interested in hearing the hon. Member’s evident experience. I would like to put on record that I am the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. It is extremely important that police officers have representation. In only the last three years, we have heard about tragic cases of suicides and hundreds of attempted suicides. It is also evident that the governance of the Police Federation has to be adapted and improved immensely.

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member says that policing is often a thankless task. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to and thank him and the many other fantastic police officers, including in Dorset police, for their work. The hon. Member talks about the fairness of representation. I had a constituent whose daughter, a police officer, was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer. She was dismissed from the service as a result of a misconduct process that failed to recognise her trauma. Both officers were represented by the Police Federation, and the other officer got more senior representation based on his rank. That cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.”

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s experience and advocacy of police officers throughout the country. In my constituency, local officers from the federation have been supporting police officers. This debate is not about them, but how can we support them by giving them more choice?

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, and we are looking at that issue as we speak, making sure that we strike the right balance. At the moment, there is a huge cost to policing from football matches and other events more widely that is not covered. That support is not there, so we think it is right that we look at the issue.

Police Reform White Paper

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in these affairs, and I will happily discuss some of the details of these proposals with him. I will announce the appointment of a reviewer in due course, and it will be for the reviewer and the supporting panel to set out how they intend to conduct the review, including the consultation. However, I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that these reforms will work if they have the buy-in and if they make sense based on geography. They will reflect that, and I will ensure that when I receive the reviewer’s report, that is the same lens through which I will look at the proposals.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Policing needs a stronger national centre, modern IT systems that actually work and can talk to each other, and much better mental health support for officers who are exposed to so much trauma. These reforms could deliver that, so I welcome those elements. However, I am sceptical about the licence to practise and the value that it might add, although I approach it with an open mind. Although I believe in having different routes into policing, I am sceptical about direct entry at inspector rank specifically, given that it is such a crucial operational rank—and one that I myself have held. This has, after all, been tried unsuccessfully by the previous Government.

If policing reform is to be a success, it will be down to the implementation on the frontline—that is what really matters to the public—so the voices of those on the frontline must be a key part, and that cannot be possible through the rotten Police Federation, which only today was found to have unlawfully suspended elected officers for speaking up. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that she will take the voices of the frontline into account before making final decisions, and will she meet me to discuss the proposals?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will absolutely take into account the views of the rank and file, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. As for the Police Federation, the White Paper makes it clear that we are not happy with the status quo. The Policing Minister has met its representatives directly, and they know that if they do not improve quickly enough, I will not hesitate to bring forward further reforms to ensure that our rank and file police officers are better represented. My hon. Friend also mentioned direct entry. As he will know, Lord Blunkett is currently leading an independent commission on police leadership, and I will look at the proposals that he puts forward. The White Paper signals our interest in this model of direct entry, but, as has been noted, the devil is always in the detail and it is all about how these reforms are implemented. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will continue to keep an open mind as we develop our proposals further.

Asylum Policy

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead.

Police Reform

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am very happy to pay tribute to Marc Jones. I have met him to talk about these issues, and there are particular challenges in Lincolnshire that we are looking at very closely. The funding settlement will be announced in the usual way before the end of the year, and we are talking very closely. I am very aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I welcome this decision and think that the abolition of PCCs is sensible. The role was ill defined and poorly understood by the public, as the Minister has mentioned, and it failed to add sufficient tangible value to justify its existence. However, I echo the Minister’s comments about the individuals who have served, particularly Clive Grunshaw, who is the current police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, and indeed the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is not in his place but who served as the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Lancashire.

As the Minister mentioned, the introduction of PCCs had an effect on the recruitment of chief constables. Their one-on-one relationships were too fraught, and it meant that a small falling-out could lead to chief constables being fired. Can she talk about how we can get more high-quality candidates to apply to become chief constables, and about how their relationship with the deputy mayors might operate?

[Sarah Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our local police and crime commissioners, including Clive Grunshaw, for their work. He is absolutely right to say that there have been challenges. There has been a reduction in the number of years for which police chiefs serve, from about five to about two and a half—so something is happening there. There are also fewer people applying for such jobs as they become available. We want really healthy competition for these roles, which are very significant and important to us. Where there is a large force and only one applicant for the role, something is not working as it should.

My hon. Friend is right to ask questions on the wider question of leadership; we could have a whole debate about that. The former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is conducting a review for us on how we improve leadership from top to bottom across the entire policing system. Our reform agenda is looking at performance across the board within policing, and at the welfare, training and support that have to go alongside it. We ask a lot of our police, and we do not always give them the support that they need. Those two things, hand in hand, will form a major part of our reform programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Facial recognition is being used in a controlled way for high harm individuals. There is guidance about how it should be used, but I am happy to have a further conversation with the right hon. Gentleman about that, as I am aware that Members from across the House have raised the issue of the framework within which it operates.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my former colleagues for the way that they professionally policed the protests over the weekend, and I wish those who were injured a speedy recovery. Police officers cannot join a union and they have only one staff association—the Police Federation—to choose from, the chief executive of which reportedly took home over £600,000 last year. Will the new ministerial team commit to reviewing whether that monopoly can really serve the interests of our brave police officers?

[Sarah Jones]

We need to ensure that our police officers are given the best support that they can be given through the Police Federation, which is the vehicle by which they are supported through any incidents they have. I will be working very closely with it to ensure that it is doing the right thing on behalf of its members.