Debate contribution: Policing Resources

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .

MLA
Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
25 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Policing Resources
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5259274

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Today's motion comes as a result one of the most disturbing policing failures in recent years. I welcome the contributions from across the House. A young girl, Cimarron Thomas, lost her life, and her father later took his life. Both deaths were linked directly to the actions of Alexander McCartney and to the delays that allowed him to keep offending while he was on PSNI bail. That is the essential point. It is not about every detail — it is just about the simple truth that a child was failed, a family was devastated and an offender was left free to harm others because the system could not keep pace. The ombudsman's investigation and report into the PSNI's handling of the case paint a stark picture. The report was published two weeks ago; I say that for Mr Clarke's benefit. Maybe if we changed the rules on when the Opposition have to give their notice of motions for Opposition day and bring it a little bit closer to the day, we would not have to pick something from two weeks ago to discuss. The report shows that there were serious delays, poor prioritisation and a failure in risk management and bail supervision. The key conclusion is unavoidable: it was not a failure of will, but a failure of capacity.

The PSNI has said outright that it simply did not have the resources needed to respond as victims rightly expect, and what we have is just not working. Let us be clear for the avoidance of doubt, police resources and funding levels are not an operational matter but a strategic decision for the Minister and the Executive, and the buck stops with the Minister and the Executive. People have been promised more by the Executive, and yet the Chief Constable has warned for over a year that police numbers are at a historic low and that public safety is at risk. His warnings are not vague. In March, he said that he was worried that it would:

"take a 'catastrophic event' to wake people up".

In July, he warned that, without £200 million, visible policing would disappear in some communities, and the murder investigation teams would fall below UK standards. In September, he said, bluntly:

"we have, in effect, broken the workforce."

The alarm bells are deafening, and yet the Executive have done nothing meaningful in response. Today is White Ribbon Day, as has been referenced. It is a day to highlight the impact of violence against women and girls and to recommit to ending the violence, and yet the Executive cannot even fund the Police Service to cover the basics. They are letting women and girls down in the worst way possible by not providing a viable, visible and properly funded police service. In June, after the racist riots in Ballymena, we heard big declarations that funding would be signed off, and that £200 million would be a game changer, and six months on, not a single pound has appeared, not one. Instead, the Executive mismanaged the data leak liabilities, ignored the inevitable cost and made it easy for the Treasury to turn down emergency reserve funding, which should be available for genuinely unforeseen and unavoidable pressures. The result is a workforce at breaking point, collapsing recruitment, communities left with fewer officers and an increased risk to the public. We cannot ignore the impact on representation. Catholic participation rose to almost 28% under the 50:50 policy on recruitment, which was a major achievement, but since the policy was scrapped, progress has stalled. The Chief Constable has said that headlines about legacy remain the biggest barrier for many young nationalists who might otherwise want to serve. Recruitment and legacy are intertwined, and pretending they are not is part of the problem, but it does not have to be that way. We can do so much better. Today, the SDLP has set out four clear actions for Stormont, London and Dublin. First, the Department of Justice must stop dodging the issue of officer numbers, and commit to 7,000 officers by 2028 and pursue the £230 million required for the data leak liabilities. Secondly, reintroduce the 50:50 policy on recruitment as part of rebuilding a representative and effective police service. Thirdly, begin a serious process to renew the rule of law, reviewing what has worked since 1998 and what now needs to be strengthened. Fourthly, let us get legacy right: truth is the only route to reconciliation, not avoidance or political theatre. The failures that contributed to Cimarron's death show the consequences of a system that has been weakened, underfunded and allowed to drift financially. If we are serious about public safety, the rule of law and protecting the vulnerable, let us finally face the reality of what policing needs and fund it accordingly. That is the House's responsibility, and we cannot afford to have it fail again.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.14 (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 (0.95).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.75).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.04No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.09No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.14At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.75
Reports or questions it0.08
Criticises or condemns it0.16
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.44
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.23
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.14
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.11
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.06

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