Debate contribution: Policing Resources
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Policing Resources
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511644
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. In September 1999, Chris Patten delivered his report and recommendations on the future of policing in Northern Ireland. If he were to present a report on where policing is 25 years later, would he be satisfied with the progress, and would he award an A* grade for how his recommendations have been taken forward? I suspect not. He based his recommendations on the number of police officers on an assumption that the peace gained by the Good Friday Agreement would become the norm, with the proviso that any upsurge in violence would lead to an increase in police numbers. There is no doubt that our society has moved beyond the daily mayhem of indiscriminate bombing and the wanton murder that terrorist murderers inflicted on all of our people. However, on occasions, live ammunition is still being fired towards police officers with no regard to who may fall victim to such actions. Petrol bombs and bricks are still being thrown at our police officers, and many of those officers still feel the need to check under their cars every morning for explosive devices planted by those who refuse to move on. Would Patten, 25 years on, feel that there is a surge in violence that might warrant an upward adjustment on his recommended police numbers? What did Patten recommend in 1999? He envisaged a Police Service made up of 7,500 full-time officers supported by 2,500 locally recruited part-time reservists to police the peaceful situation that, he hoped, the Good Friday Agreement would produce. What is the current position on policing numbers? The Chief Constable reported last week to the Policing Board that the numbers stand at around 6,300, with just a handful of part-time reservists. Of that 6,300, he currently can deploy only 4,500 officers on the streets due to illness and injury. Chief Constable Boutcher has a statutory duty to protect life and property, to prevent crime and to bring those who break the law before the courts. He is accountable to deliver and is judged by how effectively he does so. He needs more officers, and, to recruit and train new officers in numbers that outstrip the natural wastage of officer retirements, he needs more budget. What did he do? He wrote to the Prime Minister directly, pleading for more resource and referencing the national security crisis for additional budget from the Government to cover the situation. My party applauds him for taking that direct action and rejects any ham-fisted attempts to silence him. I was pleased to hear him informing the Policing Board last week in a determined and robust manner that no one will stop him fighting for what he considers a just cause that is very much in the interests of the Northern Ireland public and of the service and the officers that he commands. Our amendment calls on the Minister to not just be a cheerleader for the police but do more to reverse the decline in police funding and police officer numbers, and I commend it to the House. In doing so, my party pledges our continued full support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the efforts of the Chief Constable in highlighting what he needs to increase the level of service that he wishes to deliver and that, he considers, all the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
561 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.13 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.