Debate contribution: Policing Resources

Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on 25 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Trevor Clarke

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

25 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Policing Resources

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5259201

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am not sure that I can add much to what has already been said. It sounds a bit like a rehearsal of the debate that we have been having over this past two to three years about resourcing issues for the police. I put on record, however, my recognition of the work that the Department of Justice, the Executive and others have done to recognise the underfunded position in which policing finds itself. In saying that, we are disappointed that the finances have not come from the Department of Finance. However, there is a commitment from the Executive to fund the police in the recovery plan. We do not know what that will look like in the next two to three years, but it will certainly be in the recovery plan for this year. The motion from the Opposition party is a wee bit opportunistic in the way that it has been drafted and in some of its content, because none of us needed to wait for a report from the ombudsman to see the state that policing is in. We all know from different areas in policing the pressures that it faces. It is interesting that we are focusing on one aspect of that today, but the one thing that we all see in our communities day and daily is front-line policing through neighbourhood policing, which is where we all want to see policing get to. We are, obviously, minded to support the Ulster Unionist Party amendment. We are not against the amendment in the names of Linda and others from Sinn Féin, but it is difficult in that it emphasises one part of policing without recognising all its parts. That is in the line that states that we must "prioritise" issues facing women and girls over everything else. How can we decide today which one area of policing is more important than others?

I will.

I accept that, and, for the record, I am happy to say that that is what the amendment says. However, it implies that we should look at one side of policing as opposed to all of it. As the Member for Upper Bann said, we have 4,500 police officers available on a daily basis, effectively, so how can we emphasise one area of policing without looking at it in its totality? I will go back to where I started this conversation. The pause on recruitment has been lifted. We need more responsible conversation from the Opposition and others. They come along with wonderful wish lists of everything that they want to do, but if there were a big case for funding for police today, would they get behind it? What would they substitute policing for so that there could be spending on policing that would allow us to get to the number that we require, which is 7,500? Always being left off that 7,500 is the provision of 2,500 Reserve officers, which was a Good Friday Agreement commitment. That would also help to address the overtime pressures that policing faces, because there would be flexibility to scale numbers up and down at short notice. As I said, we are minded to support amendment No 1. We have a less favourable view of amendment No 2, because of the prioritisation of that issue. Let me say this, however: we all need to be honest about and careful what we wish for. I have been defending policing for some time, and I will defend the current Chief Constable, as, indeed, I did the previous Chief Constable, making the calls for additional finance. While those conversations were going on, every other Department was putting pressure on Finance to get money. At some stage, we will have to be mature and say, "We need to give something up, because we recognise that policing numbers are at an all-time low". We will have to ask, "What will another Department go without?", and then offer that money to the Finance Department to allow policing to be resourced.

Was that three minutes?

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:57 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