Debate contribution: DOJ: Budgetary Pressures
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- DOJ: Budgetary Pressures
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738145
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One of the Executive's priorities, under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, was to increase police numbers to 7,500. That is the same figure that was recommended by the Patten report 20 years ago. However, police officer numbers are at a record low. Without additional funding, it will not be possible for the PSNI to recover and grow as we would wish it to. In order for the PSNI to have adequate funding to stabilise and recover numbers to a sustainable position, I have repeatedly raised the need for a better financial settlement for my Department with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues. I pay tribute to the Finance Minister, who, in recent allocations, showed that she had listened to that argument. My officials are considering a business case from the PSNI on stabilisation and recruitment, and we continue to work closely with PSNI colleagues to help support them to prepare a robust business case for onward submission to the Department of Finance.
When the work has been completed, I will make the case to the Executive for additional funding for that purpose. For the affordability requirements to be met, however, we will need to deal with the additional £30 million pressure in the Department. Otherwise, the affordability component of any business case will not be met. It is therefore important that the Department continue to work to reduce that pressure insofar as we can and that the PSNI and our other arm's-length bodies seek to do likewise.
260 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: 0.03 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.96 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:42 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.