Jonathan Hinder
MP for Pendle and Clitheroe · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 85 lines we hold for Jonathan Hinder, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“I say to those children: you are perfect just the way you are and you do not need to be somehow corrected with these drugs. Children of primary school age cannot possibly give consent to these life-changing decisions. When they become adults, many of them will look back on what was done to them and ask, “How did this happen to me? How did the Government do this to me?””
“I repeat: once they are locked into this medicalised pathway, infertility is expected. Let us be absolutely clear that this trial would mean the British state sterilising healthy little children in plain sight—not by accident, but consciously and deliberately. How could we do that to children? It would be the most appalling state scandal imaginable. These medically healthy children need love, compassion and support. They should not be given powerful drugs to stop their body from developing as normal. The truth is that puberty can be very distressing for any child, not least those who do not conform to aggressive gender stereotypes or who will grow up to be same-sex attracted. Puberty is a natural and essential part of becoming a fully grown human being.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The proposed puberty blockers trial on children is not just badly designed; it is profoundly unethical. It proposes that vulnerable children who are struggling with their identity, but medically healthy, be given drugs that risk permanent damage. We know that this group of children is deeply vulnerable. They deserve proper care and treatment. The medicalising of gender identity risks underlying conditions being overlooked, meaning that children will not get the support they really need. Children in this trial would be at what is called Tanner stage 2 of puberty. For children at Tanner stage 2 who proceed to cross-sex hormones—basically, all of them—infertility is not a risk, but an expected outcome.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“The Government were right to bring in the indefinite ban on puberty blockers due to concerns over the past 15 years about the gender services treatment that was being given. Over that time, 2,000 children who were questioning their gender identity have been given puberty blockers, so could the Minister explain why we are not following up on their long-term outcomes before we administer these powerful drugs to 200 more children?”
“This time, the truth will be that this was state-sanctioned, out in the open and—I am afraid to say—at the Health Secretary’s say-so. I am begging the Health Secretary to use his power as the politician in charge to do what he must know is right and stop this.”
“We are talking here about physically healthy primary school-age children being injected with drugs to stop them growing up. There is nothing medically wrong with these children; what they need is love, support and compassion to help them to accept their healthy bodies. They are perfect just the way they are. The Health Secretary says that he is “uncomfortable” with this experiment, and his instincts are correct. In the haunting words of Keira Bell, a courageous young woman and a victim of the Tavistock scandal: “I was an unhappy girl who needed help. Instead, I was treated like an experiment.” When these children who are now going to be experimented on become adults, they will want to know who did this to them.”
“The Government’s deal to build 20 new Typhoons for NATO member Turkey is welcome news for jobs in Lancashire, including for my Pendle and Clitheroe constituents who work at BAE’s Samlesbury site. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in this geopolitical environment, we need sovereign capability more than ever, so can he give us some more good news, back British workers and put in a domestic order for Typhoons?”
“I am delighted to see this Labour Government cracking on with new nuclear in the form of small modular reactors. When the Rolls-Royce site in Barnoldswick in my constituency was saved from closure during the pandemic, future SMR manufacturing work was specifically referenced in the dispute resolution agreement negotiated by my own trade union, Unite. As this Government are committed to creating clean jobs in all parts of the country, will the Minister and other relevant Ministers impress on Rolls-Royce SMR that some of the jobs created by this project must come to Barnoldswick?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“Many of my constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe work at the BAE site in Samlesbury, and they are delighted at this news, so I thank the Minister for his work and everyone who has worked on the deal. This deal is good for our national security, high-skilled jobs and local economies such as mine in Lancashire. Will the Minister outline what these contracts mean for opportunities for apprenticeships for young people?”
“Looking across the Chamber, I cannot see a north-west Conservative MP, but that is not surprising, because there are now only three—they are a rare species, just as Conservative MPs are in many other regions outside the south-east. The Conservatives’ answer remains the same as it has always been: that growth in the south-east will lift up constituencies such as mine. “Make those with wealth wealthier and everyone else will benefit”, they say, but that economic thinking has failed time and again.”
“Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that someone living in a £1 million London townhouse will pay £1,000 less per year in council tax than a constituent of mine living in a house worth £250,000? It bears repeating—£1,000 less for someone who lives in a £1 million London townhouse than for someone who lives in a £250,000 house. That is outrageous, and if the Conservatives were still a serious party, perhaps they would focus on council tax, which is so emblematic of the regional inequalities I have just mentioned. Those inequalities have condemned once-prosperous regions of the country to steady economic decline. The Conservatives will not do so, though, because they quite literally no longer represent regions such as mine.”
“That means that 95% of first-time buyers in the north-west of England do not pay stamp duty, whereas 80% of them in London do. These are, let us be clear, the priorities of the same old Conservative party we have always known: the protection of wealth in the south-east above the concerns of constituents such as mine. Where would their supposed spending cuts fall? The motion does not tell us, so we can only assume that they would fall on public services in areas such as Pendle and Clitheroe. The funny thing is that I am a strong advocate for serious property tax reform, but the Tories are not proposing to address the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain, which is council tax. Our council tax system punishes working-class people in the north precisely because they live in a poorer area.”
“Let us get straight to the point: what we are discussing today is a Tory plan for tax cuts for the better off, with no plan to pay for it. That is what the Tories have chosen to spend their Opposition day on. My constituents are frustrated by the stark regional inequality in our country that means that London and the south-east are, economically speaking, another country all together. They lament the lack of public investment in transport, infrastructure and skills that this Labour Government are seeking to put right, so it is staggering that the Tories have chosen to propose tax cuts for people buying expensive homes in London and the south-east, further entrenching that regional inequality. In the north-west, the average house price is about £200,000; in London, it is over £550,000.”
“I am going to finish. Property taxes in this country do need radical reform—on that, I hope I can find allies on all sides of this House. We need a more proportional property tax, but the Tories’ hare-brained idea to scrap stamp duty—a big tax cut for the better-off in the south-east—with no plan to pay for it, while leaving the regressive council tax untouched, is just not serious.”
“I am pleased that the hon. Member is leading this debate and glad that he is raising the point of regional inequality. Does he agree that council tax is the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain, and that it is long overdue a proper overhaul to link property values to the amount of tax paid, as is not the case at the moment?”
“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?”
“Will the Lord Chancellor update the House on the conversation she had with international partners on the European convention on human rights during her recent visit to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg?”
“The chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, and the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Rich Cooke, have both been removed by the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation after speaking up for the officers they were elected to represent. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am that the only staff association that police officers are legally allowed to join is no longer fit for purpose?”
“9. What discussions she has had with sports governing bodies on ensuring that they are compliant with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v . The Scottish Ministers.”
“More than two months after the Supreme Court clarified the law, there remains a long list of sporting bodies that are denying fairness to women and girls, including Parkrun and, remarkably, sports such as weightlifting and wrestling—the mind boggles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no need to wait for further guidance and that these bodies should take the advice of the Prime Minister and get on with it?”