Debate contribution: Policing Resources
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 25 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Policing Resources
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5259262
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We debated earlier the importance of Budgets and the forthcoming multi-annual Budget. The multi-annual Budget is an important step for the Executive and, indeed, the Assembly. Of course, there will still be challenges, as our Budget does not meet all the identified needs and pressures, but it will bring into focus how such Budgets can provide longer-term certainty for planning. That will include how they are managed and how we work together in order to prioritise need. The multi-annual Budget will also present an opportunity to be more innovative and joined up in how we approach delivering public services to meet that need. That includes the policing budget, which is a sizeable part of the Justice budget, as the Minister outlined. Although work is ongoing to address the underlying issues with funding, recruitment and retention, the discussions must also point to budget management and prioritisation in policing. There is no doubt that the case mentioned in the motion is one of the most serious in recent times. It again shines a light on the need to tackle violence against women and girls and the direct impact that violence against women and girls has on victims, their families and, indeed, the wider community. It also demonstrates the importance of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, which highlighted some of the failings and shortcomings. Although resourcing pressures impact on policing capacity, as was highlighted in the ombudsman's recent report, we know that prioritisation and culture play key roles in tackling those issues consistently and systemically. Of course, a cultural shift is not only for policing but for society as a whole. Our key public bodies that lead on public safety should, however, be leading the way in that area of work. A recent Criminal Justice Inspection report highlighted the need for the criminal justice system to have a collective vision and shared priorities. The Executive in their Programme for Government prioritised tackling violence against women and girls. It is therefore important that that systemic issue be highlighted and reflected in the collective vision and shared priorities document. In turn, it must also be a priority for the PSNI, and that should be reflected in its work programme and budget. I know that that case was some time ago, and improvements have obviously been made, but we need to continue to do more. It is important that work be done to ensure that we break down the siloed approaches that can result in the delays that we know there to be in the justice system. It is also important that we are innovative, especially when it comes to looking at emerging technologies and AI, to ensure that we not only deal with the challenges of today but future-proof that work. We also believe that policing with the community is the foundation not only of the policing dispensation here, as it is often the early alert system for emerging issues and trends, but of the needs of and priorities in the issues that are to be dealt with.
Thank you.
512 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.56 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.43 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.