Debate contribution: Policing Resources
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- MLA
- Ms Joanne Bunting
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Policing Resources
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511681
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Being a Chief Constable of the PSNI has never been a position for the faint of heart, and that is especially the case at present, although not entirely for the traditional reasons. The service is beset by the perfect storm: poor morale, the lowest numbers in its history and an appalling and unsustainable financial position with services repeatedly cut year-on-year. The harsh truth, which we have acknowledged but perhaps not actioned as much as we might, is that the PSNI has faced unsustainable cuts for many years, and now we — not just "it" but "we" — are at a crisis point, because, if it cannot do its job as a result of cuts of an unprecedented and cumulative scale, it does not merely impact the organisation; it has consequences for our communities, our society and indeed the very safety of our citizens and nation. Neither we nor our neighbours in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland can afford for Northern Ireland to be the weak link in national security or those crimes that cross borders, jurisdictions and county lines. The Chief Constable came before the Justice Committee earlier in the year, and he was very clear that the situation was unsustainable. He advised that, at that time, the police were handling over 500 calls a month on behalf of the Ambulance Service and were in receipt of 42,000 calls a year about concerns for well-being and safety and that the PSNI has the highest sickness levels in the UK, and that is in the context of the budget for policing in the Republic of Ireland increasing by 25%. The police are involved in much more than crime, which has also hugely increased in complexity. The service is now increasingly engaged in safeguarding and public protection. Let us remember the financial context: unlike any other police service in the UK, it is not permitted to hold reserves or to borrow money and is expected to plan for the long term on a year-to-year budget. Everything has consequences. Even before this unprecedented crisis, the PSNI had been feeling the effects of the losses. It has tried to absorb as much of the cuts as it can, but now the services are starting to change, and our constituents are noticing. Neighbourhood services have been extensively cut, and prior to that, there was already a dearth of detectives, and I should not have to spell out what that means.
Northern Ireland is one of the top three safest places to live in the UK but for how long, if this continues?
We have rehearsed in here numerous times that there are many in the justice system undertaking the roles of healthcare professionals in order to alleviate the pressures in that sector and that there are many who should be receiving treatment rather than incarceration. Just how far are we from "Right person, right care"? The Committee for Justice plans to conduct a mini inquiry into the extent to which the justice system is being used to alleviate pressures in healthcare. The Chief Constable is left in the unenviable position of trying to balance his legal and statutory obligations as an accounting officer not to overspend but balance the books with his legal and statutory obligation to keep people safe. With the current budget, it is not possible to do both — something has to give. It is not the first time in recent history that somebody in that role and situation has been reminded of those obligations and to be careful. That brings us to the infamous letter. I do not know Jon Boutcher extremely well, but I have observed him sufficiently to know that the Chief Constable is a savvy political operator not necessarily parochially in Northern Ireland but across the UK. He knows the protocols well. He is an extremely experienced chief. Therefore, one can only assume and conclude that such is his concern and frustration that he raised the issues at the highest level of government and in the circles in which he mixes. Was that the right way to go about it? Perhaps not. Was it the right and necessary thing to do? Absolutely. What option does he have? Everybody here already knows the situation, and no tangible difference has been made. Where else is he to go but straight to the top? The Prime Minister, as a former human rights adviser to the Policing Board, should still be reasonably au fait with the PSNI and its issues. This is not the time for ego, protocol and procedure. It is absolutely the time for collective voices, using every influence we have, to get the moneys that we need to protect our citizens and deal with those who commit crime. Public safety in Northern Ireland should be the utmost priority for all concerned. What is it they say about desperate times calling for desperate measures? One could be forgiven for thinking that a few noses are out of joint because the Chief Constable has more and better connections and access than they do. As I said when the matter was first exposed, the financial situation of the PSNI is dire and the consequences severe for wider society and public safety. The Chief Constable would be remiss were he not to raise those issues at the highest level of His Majesty's Government. The letter may have come from the permanent secretary, but the question remains as to whether the Minister stands by it. Other than an assertion of dominance, what is to be achieved by a public admonishment of the Chief Constable? In conclusion, I am well aware —
— that the PSNI already absorbs 65% of the departmental budget, that every part of the system is struggling and that the Minister has genuinely little room for manoeuvre.
That is all the more reason why collective voices taking the case to Treasury and the PM are essential and to be welcomed.
994 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.85 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.09 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.