Debate contribution: Policing Resources

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Kelly on .

MLA
Mr Gerry Kelly
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
9 September 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Policing Resources
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4511648

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First, let me declare an interest as a sitting member of the Policing Board. I think that it is fair to state that the vast majority of Members, if not all Members, will agree that there are unprecedented resource difficulties for the PSNI. A Police Service with a minimum need of 7,500 police officers that is sitting at approximately 6,400 and is losing 300 officers annually through retirement is unsustainable and unacceptable. There are substantial gaps at all sections and levels of policing, as was mentioned. It is perhaps witnessed most readily in local areas, where the number and visibility of neighbourhood and local police officers has diminished drastically. There is a recruitment plan to increase the number of officers over the next three years to 7,000, but, of course, that will require funding. The fact is that the North has been vastly underfunded. A decade and a half of Tory austerity has been a disaster for our public services. It has had a significant impact on our health and social care system, our education system and, of course, policing, to name just a few. The current British Government must change tack from their predecessors and properly invest in public services. The Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, supported by Executive colleagues, has led the efforts in calling on the British Government for further investment in public services. The four-party Executive and the Assembly have collectively called on the British Government to address the underfunding of the North so that we can meet the needs of our people. It is important that we continue to work together constructively in pressing the British Government in that regard. In that context, calling for a ministerial apology or accusations of gagging attempts by the Justice Department are not constructive. I was at the Policing Board meeting on Thursday, as were a number of other Members. I listened carefully to the public session with the Chief Constable, which was being streamed live. Jon Boutcher was forthright in his views. Let me quote some of his words. In summary, he said:

"In drawing a line under the issue, I am delighted to announce that I and my team are working collectively and positively with the Minister, the permanent secretary and the Department of Justice preparing a business case for the recovery of the PSNI police officer numbers."

The Chief Constable went on to welcome and acknowledge the Justice Minister and permanent secretary's support in drawing up the recovery plan, and he signalled his intention to work with them in that regard. There is no demand from the Chief Constable for an apology. Sinn Féin wants to see proper funding for the recovery of police officer numbers, and we will continue to work constructively, collectively and positively with other parties in the Executive and the Assembly in calling on the British Government for proper investment in our public services. I encourage the authors of the motion to do the same.

492 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.92
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.05
Another identity-related subject0.02
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification