Member's statement: PSNI: Additional Funding
Member's statement by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- PSNI: Additional Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197191
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak on funding for policing and, for the first time, not blame the Minister of Justice for the debacle that is unfolding before us. First, I will say that my thoughts are with the men and women who, every day, put on their uniform and go out to serve our community. They are caught up in a debacle through no fault of their own and, I dare say, through no fault of any Ministers in the Executive. This week, it has been shameful to hear, through a leaked report from the Treasury — I suggest that people were briefed — suggestions that it will not give additional funding to the PSNI. It is shameful that the Secretary of State is not standing up for the PSNI. Indeed, he enjoys its support and protection every time that he flies into Northern Ireland on a whim. He said that such things should have been planned and budgeted for. I say this to the Secretary of State: I am not sure how any Minister, be that the current or any future Minister of Justice, could have planned for things that happened in our past. I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I have an insight into some of the things from the past and their cost to the Northern Ireland purse. I am talking primarily about legacy. If the Secretary of State were to quantify what legacy has cost since the formation of the Assembly and give us that money, it would remove the difficulties that we face with the current funding cycle in which we are stuck. We can look also at the Government's immigration policy and asylum policy, both of which we had no say on. Some in the Chamber support having asylum seekers here, but asylum seekers have brought with them problems — some of them unforeseen — for the police by way of protests and riots. That has been through no fault of the Assembly. Rather, it has been the fault of the current Government and their policies. The report talked about planned events. No one planned for the data breach. The data breach was unforeseen and clearly not planned. I do not know what planet the Treasury is living on: it must be cloud cuckoo land. No one went into work that day to leak information about all those officers and their families. It was an accident. I see the Member opposite shaking his head. It was a mistake that is going to cost tens of millions of pounds, however. Early indications from the Treasury were that it was going to support the payment of compensation, but it is now running away, as it does from everything else.
458 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: 0.18 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.70).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.43 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.52 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.27 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.67 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:31 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.